Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lochaber Water Power Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aberavon, Neath, and Swansea Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cardiff Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newark Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shaftesbury Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Stoke-on-Trent Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Taunton Extension) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Rotherham and Sheffield Extension) Bill,

Hamilton Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UPPER SILESIA.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Jewish population of Upper Silesia, comprising 20,000 people, a large proportion of the industrial population, voted unanimously in favour of remaining with Germany, knowing that their welfare lies with that country; and will cognisance be taken of that fact in the plebiscite award?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The future of Upper Silesia will be decided in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, which does not provide for any distinction being drawn between the votes of different races, sects or creeds.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Whatever the final decision about Upper Silesia, will the minority clauses be enforced with regard to these Jewish minorities?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no doubt that will be done.

LITHUANIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision by the tribunal sitting in Belgium on the Polish-Lithuanian dispute is in any way binding on His Majesty's Government; and whether, in view of the action of Polish irregulars in Silesia, as formerly in Vilna, and the improper support obtained for such action elsewhere, he will now recognise the independence of Lithuania de jure as well as de facto?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): There is no tribunal in Brussels, as suggested. Monsieur Hymans has been delegated by the League of Nations to preside over conferences between Polish and Lithuanian delegates in Brussels, and will submit any solution that may be reached to the Council of the League of Nations for its decision. De jure recognition of Lithuania must be decided upon its merits apart from the question of Upper Silesia.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Monsieur Hymans, who is presiding over this Conference, is alleged to have given a decision that Lithuania should be subject to Poland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether he has or has not given a decision, but whenever he does he will report to the League of Nations.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not a misapprehension to talk about Monsieur Hymans giving any "decision" at all? Is he not there merely to try and induce these parties to come to an agreement between themselves?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I said. Perhaps in answer to a supplementary question I should not have put the matter as I did, but have said that the result, whatever it may be, will be reported to the League of Nations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In any case, may we take it that the fact that Lithuania has not been recognised de jure will not be used to prejudice the case of Lithuania before this tribunal and before the League of Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian Government proposes to dispense with the services of certain British officers and civilian officials who were employed in Persia under the terms of the lapsed Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919; and whether, subject to adequate compensation being paid to these officials for termination of contract, His Majesty's Government will accord to Persia complete freedom in any such action?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Such information as I have recently received does not substantiate the intention attributed to the Persian Government in the first part of the question. The other points do not therefore arise. My hon. Friend will, however, realise that the political situation in Teheran is at present somewhat unstable.

Sir J. D. REES: Under any circumstances, is it for any foreign Government to accord complete freedom to the Government of the King of Kings?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to discuss that with my hon. Friend.

Sir J. D. REES: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement upon the state of affairs in Persia as regards Bolshevik influence or its absence, and the attitude of the Shah's present Government in regard to military matters, and particularly to the South Persian Rifles?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The representative of the Russian Soviet Government has recently arrived in Teheran. The Persian Government were endeavouring to raise and train a suitable force for the maintenance of internal order and in-tended to take over the force hitherto known as the South Persian Rifles. The Persian Prime Minister, Seyed Zia-ed-din, has, however, now resigned, and the Government appears to be temporarily in the hands of a military dictator. How far this may be connected with the arrival of the Soviet Emissary at Teheran, I am unable at present to say. In these circumstances, while His Majesty's Government are watching events attentively, it is too soon to make any more definite statement regarding future developments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (ANGORA GOVERNMENT).

Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest information he has regarding the political complexion of the Angora Turkish Government in Asia Minor; whether it is still acting in close touch with Moscow; and whether the recent hanging of a British-Indian subject is due to representation made by the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The latest information regarding the political complexion of the Angora Government is that the extremists are in the ascendant. It is in close touch with the Russian Soviet Government, but I have no information to show that the recent hanging of a British Indian subject was the result of Russian representations.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Have any representations been made to the Angora Government with regard to the hanging of British subjects?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Communication is at present very difficult. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEE CAMPS.

Sir J. D. REES: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in closing camps of Armenian and other refugees; and what is the monthly cost now being incurred on this account?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Everything possible is being done to absorb permanently the Armenian refugees in Mesopotamia who are capable of colonising the healthier districts. The remainder will be repatriated as soon as some reasonable guarantee of their personal safety has been received. A telegram was recently sent to the High Commissioner enquiring the monthly cost of their maintenance. No reply has yet been received. The Assyrian camp at present costs 400,000 rupees, approximately, £26,666 a a month. It is hoped to dispose of the inmates at a comparatively early date, partly by repatriation and partly by allotting them land for settlement, together with a small capital for the purchase of stock, etc. Steps are being taken to remove all the remaining Russian refugees from Mesopotamia at a very early date. Approximately, a sum of £9,700 is being incurred monthly on the maintenance of those Russian refugees who are under British control in camps in Egypt, Cyprus, and at Tuzla, near Constantinople. There is a further charge of £10,000 per month for those refugees who have been taken over by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government. I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply which I gave to him on 24th February last.

Sir J. D. REES: Does my hon. Friend think that these refugees will ever go away if they are not to be returned until there are reasonable guarantees or provision has been made for them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member is referring to the Armenian refugees. We cannot launch them into the wilderness, and leave them to their fate.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Are any of the Assyrian refugees in Mesopotamia being
enlisted in the local Mesopotamian forces?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know. I would like notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that it is the wish of the lower deck that the Welfare Committee should be again formed and a sitting held this year; and can he hold out any hope that this will be done?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The Commanders-in-Chief at the home ports have been directed to ascertain the feelings of the men in regard to this matter. The action of the Admiralty must depend upon the reports received.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding naval officers' marriage allowances?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am unable to add anything to my previous replies on this subject.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House when he thinks he will be in a position to give some definite reply to this request, which has been preferred so often during the present Session?

Mr. AMERY: I know my hon. Friend appreciates some of the difficulties, but I hope to be able to make a definite statement when the First Lord's Vote comes on.

PAYMASTERS AND CHIEF WRITERS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many paymaster-lieutenant-commanders or paymaster-lieutenants have been appointed to relieve the chief writers at the naval ports; whether he is aware that the decision of the Admiralty as given to the Welfare Committee was to the effect that if the responsibilities of
these posts should become too great for chief writers warrant writers should be appointed in lieu; can he say whether this decision has been carried out in letter and in spirit; and, if not, can he give any reason why a departure has been made?

Mr. AMERY: No chief writers at the ports have been relieved by paymaster lieutenant-commanders or paymaster-lieutenants. The remaining portions of the question do not, therefore, arise.

HISTORY OF THE WAR.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what documents Sir Julian Corbett will have access in compiling the Naval History of the War, and which of these documents will not be available to Members of Parliament or the general public?

Mr. AMERY: Sir Julian Corbett has access to all the Admiralty papers covering the period of the War, and also to relevant papers that may be furnished him by the Committee of Imperial Defence. Apart from such despatches and reports as may have been published, none of these documents is available to Members of Parliament or the general public.

Viscount CURZON: Could the hon. Gentleman circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the documents—just the titles of the documents?

Mr. AMERY: I think that would be too long a task.

Commander BELLAIRS: Does that mean that Sir Julian Corbett will have access to Board minutes, such as those on the Battle of Jutland in which each member of the Board commented on that battle?

Mr. AMERY: I would prefer to have notice of that question.

POST-WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the post-War disability scale of pensions will be applied to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?

Mr. AMERY: The post-War scales will become operative 30 days after the official termination of the War. It is anticipated that detailed particulars will be ready for
publication at an early date. The regulations governing the application of the post-War scales to pre-War disability pensioners who have served in the present War are now practically complete, and as soon as some minor details have been settled, the work of reassessing these pre-War pensions will be taken into hand.

Sir B. FALLE: Will they be paid automatically, or will each individual have to apply?

Mr. AMERY: I think they will be paid automatically.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I take it that the reply given is in effect the same as the reply given to me to an unstarred question?

Mr. AMERY: I believe the answers in both cases are identical.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

Sir B. FALLE: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the arrangement recently made in the dockyards as to the order of discharge of men serving in the yards is being carried out, or if ex-service men are being discharged while men not ex-service men, who entered the yard after August, 1914, are being retained?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): The order of discharge laid down by the Admiralty is being observed, but it does not follow that ex-service men recently entered on a casual basis, whose entry was made possible by those already employed being put on short time, are retained in preference to the earlier entrants.

PRIZE MONEY.

Sir B. FALLE: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the estate of every man of the lower deck who was killed on service during the War was credited with the full amount of prize money, that is, prize money for 30 months' sea service, but that those men who were wounded, or injured by shell-fire, torpedo, or the like, and who, having escaped with their lives, were discharged as invalids, are only being given the proportion of prize money due to their length of active service during the War; and if he will remedy this state of things?

Mr. AMERY: Under the Proclamation of the 10th February, 1919, the maximum rates of prize money which could have been earned, having regard to the date of entry, are payable not only to the estates of those who lost their lives in action or other casualty whilst on qualifying service, but also to those who, as a result of wounds or injuries so received, were invalided or were certified as medically fit for shore duty only.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reasons for the delay in distributing the balance of prize money due from the late War; whether a further payment on account can be made; how many persons are engaged in administering this fund; who is at their head; what is the total of the salaries paid to these persons; and whether these salaries are chargeable to the Prize Fund?

Mr. AMERY: Prize proceeds can only become available for distribution as the accounts relating to the several seizures are completed by the various Prize Courts concerned, and the balances are transferred to the Naval Prize Fund. The collection of such proceeds is being made as rapidly as circumstances permit. In view of the large number of beneficiaries (nearly 500,000) and the labour involved in each distribution, the accretion of a very considerable amount is necessary before a further payment is justifiable, and it is not considered that such further distribution (which will be final) will be practicable until the early part of next year. The branch of the Accountant - General's Department charged with the administration of the fund comprises about 180 persons, but it is responsible not only for the investigation of claims and payment of prize money, but also for the record of services for the determination of claims to medals, etc. Their salaries, amounting approximately to £42,000 a year, are not chargeable against the Prize Fund.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision not to make further payments on account, in view of the fact that many of the people to whom prize money is due are in a state of the greatest distress at the present moment?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid it would be very difficult and costly to do so. It
would mean that the whole staff now engaged on medal work would have to be taken off that work in order to deal with this distribution and those awaiting medals would be kept a long time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that some of these men would rather wait for the medals than wait for the prize money?

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Secretary to the Admiralty is a member of the Board; and, if so, when this change was first brought about?

Mr. AMERY: For all practical purposes, both the Parliamentary and the Permanent Secretary have always been members of the Board, taking part in the Board meetings and having definite administrative spheres assigned to them by the First Lord under the Order in Council defining the constitution of the Board. Although they are not Lords Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral, this has never affected the practical position, as may be seen from the fact that the earliest Order in Council (of 1869) defining the constitution of the Board placed the Civil Lord under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I take it then that the position is exactly the same as it was formerly—that no change has been made?

Mr. AMERY: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

EMIGRATION, PERU.

Mr. RAPER: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government of Peru has yet made any remittance in respect of the claims made against them by the British emigrants who went out to Peru on the representations of their Consul in London, and subsequently returned to this country, owing to the fact that conditions there were not as represented?

Mr. AMERY: No remittance has as yet been received from the Government of Peru in respect of the claims made by
emigrants from this country, but I understand that a decree was signed by the President on 19th May, authorising an advance payment of £2,000 to be paid throught the Peruvian Legation in London. As soon as this money is received a distribution will be made.

Mr. RAPER: Has the Peruvian Government admitted its total liability in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, I do not think that is so, but the President, pending investigation, has authorised an advance to us of £2,000.

Mr. RAPER: Does the British Government propose to accept that in full settlement of the Peruvian Government's liability?

Mr. AMERY: That depends on investigation of the particular claims, and a good many claims have been sent in. Some of these naturally are at the very highest figure, and we can only ask the Peruvian Government to pay those claims which we have ourselves verified.

Mr. BRIANT: In the interim cannot the Government make some advance towards these men until this £2,000 is paid, as many of them are absolutely destitute and entirely dependent on Poor Law relief?

Mr. AMERY: Some advance has been made. I have written to my hon. Friend or that very subject.

BUILDING TRADE.

Mr. CAIRNS: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Press on 20th May with regard to ex-service men in the building trade; whether the number of ex-service men employed on that date was seven; and what is the exact number of ex-service men now employed under the scheme?

Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have now applied under the Government scheme for employment in the building trades, and how many are now employed?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): 16,244 ex-service men have now applied for employment under the
scheme. In spite of the increasing industrial stagnation due to the coal mines dispute, I am glad to say that building trade employers in London, and His Majesty's Office of Works, are starting to-day to employ ex-service men on jobs on which there is a shortage of bricklayers, plasterers, slaters or tilers. Over 50 men have been taken on and have already started work under the scheme; 70 others have been allocated to employers in the London area, and should be starting to-day or to-morrow. As my hon. Friends have doubtless seen from the Press, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, notices have been posted in all the jobs in the London area that the job is only open, so far as bricklayers, plasterers, slaters and tilers are concerned, to men who are willing to work and to assist ex-service men to learn such trades. Any suggestion that the urgent necessity for more building trade operatives does not continue is contrary to the facts.

Mr. CAIRNS: What are the conditions of employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the scheme in all its details.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Of these 16,000 men, how many have started?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Fifty men have started work already, and some of the others will be started to-day or to-morrow. I must point out the great difficulties that were in the way of implementing this scheme, which began on 18th April, when we were in a period of industrial trouble.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to under-stand that the net increase since this time last week amounts to 105 men either in employment or expecting employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, if you include those who are to start to-day or to-morrow.

Sir C. YATE: Is that confined to London, or does it apply to the whole country?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The fifty taken on are general; the seventy referred to are in the London area.

Sir C. YATE: How many are in the country areas?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The building employers have undoubtedly been under great difficulties because of the stagnation in the industrial world, and therefore progress has been very much slower than either they or I wished. We hope that now the scheme may go ahead.

Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: Have similar steps been taken with regard to plasterers, who are in a still more difficult position than bricklayers—or, at any rate, quite as difficult a position?

Dr. MACNAMARA: They are included

POLITICAL AGENTS.

Mr. BRIANT: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if any of the trainees under the training scheme are sent to political organisations for the purpose of learning to be political agents or to occupy similar positions; and, if so, how many are thus employed; do they receive payment from the State; and where are such trainees at present placed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Four ex-service men are being thus trained. These men specially asked for this form of training under the business training scheme, which was designed to reduce unemploymen amongst ex-service men of higher educational qualifications. During their training they receive the normal maintenance allowances provided under that scheme. The training was limited to a period not exceeding one year and on conclusion a guarantee of 12 months' employment at a salary of not less than £4 a week was given by the employers in accordance with the scheme.

Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand that if a political organisation apply to the Minister of Labour they may be able to obtain assistance for nothing?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. Any organisation which will undertake to train an ex-officer or a man with similar qualifications, and after that guarantee him employment at a minimum rate, will, if it is a proper case, get a maintenance allowance. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make this known, that I shall be glad to know of any political organisation that is able to give these chaps a job.

Mr. BRIANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question and state where such trainees are at present placed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I can, as a matter of fact. One is at the Unionist Central Offices and three with the National Unionist Association. I am glad this question is on the Paper, because there may be other political organisations who may be prepared to take these young fellows into training.

Mr. SWAN: Will you give them the opportunity to finish their education by extending it to the Central Labour College?

Captain LOSEBY: Is there any objection to these men when they are trained going to any political organisation they like, such as the Labour party or the Liberal party, and is it not a fact that there is real scope for properly trained political agents in all the parties?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If there be an undertaking given by the firm or the political society to train these men, and give them work at the end, and if the scheme be a proper one, I give it my assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — LINEN TRADE, BELFAST.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can yet state the result of his investigations into the adequacy of the piece-rates paid to workers in the linen trade at Belfast?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The inspections so far carried out have shown that some of the piece-rates paid by the firms which were inspected were insufficient to yield the piece-work basis time-rate fixed by the Trade Board, which was made obligatory in April. Undertakings have been given to increase the rates in question so as to comply with the requirements of the Acts, and steps are being taken to deal with the other firms in the trade as rapidly as possible.

Mr. LINDSAY: Is it not a fact that in some instances these rates were fixed so high that they could not be paid?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so.

Mr. RICHARDSON: They never paid them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCKERS' STRIKE (GLASGOW).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there is a
strike of dock labourers at Glasgow harbour and that an office for the employment of free labourers to take the place of the strikers has been opened at the Windsor Hotel, Glasgow; whether this hotel is leased by the Ministry of Labour and is used to house various Government Departments; whether the agency now located in the same building is to be considered a Government Department: and, in view of the resentment of trade unionists in the city and also of ex-service men who attend this hotel for medical treatment, he will take steps to have this agency closed forthwith?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): I am aware of the circumstances of this case. As regards the second part of the question, the Windsor Hotel is leased by the Office of Works for the accommodation of various Government Departments. The Office for the Employment of Free Labourers at Glasgow harbour was transferred from the Windsor Hotel on the 24th ultimo.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer that part of, the question as to whether this agency is to be considered part of a Government Department for the enlistment of blackleg labour?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. It is a voluntary organisation, and as soon as attention was drawn to it, it was removed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Under whose authority was this agency brought from another place in Glasgow and located in a Government building?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I suppose it was done by the local representative in charge of the enlistment, but I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. HURD: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour how many women and girls are now claiming unemployment benefit under the general classification of domestic service; what in general is the character of their former occupations; and what fresh means are being taken to ensure that local employment committees do not continue
the payment of unemployment benefit to those who are suitable for private domestic service?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of women and girls on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges under the general classification of domestic service claiming unemployment benefit on the 13th May were 26,550 and 713 respectively. Their previous employments cover a great variety of women's trades. They must in all cases have been employed for a substantial period in some occupation other than private domestic service, as they would not otherwise be entitled to benefit; 85 per cent. of them were in fact claiming in respect of contributions paid in some insurable employment, other than private domestic service. Constant attention is paid to the possibility of offering domestic service vacancies to applicants on the register, and the local employment committees are scrutinising the list of applicants in order to form a special register of women who, irrespective of their last previous employment, may reasonably be regarded as suitable for private domestic service. I may add that in the first four months of this year 52,400 domestic service vacancies of one kind and another for women have been found by the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how long this special service register has been in preparation, and if it is now completed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been in course of completion about two months, speaking off-hand.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a case at Jarrow Police Court, on the 26th May last, when a woman admitted that, though she had not worked for four years and that her husband was in work, she and one of her daughters were each drawing 16s. per week unemployment benefit; whether any similar cases of women, married and single, who have never worked since the Armistice and are still receiving unemployment benefit have occurred; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent such a state of affairs in future?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My attention has been called to this case. The claim to
benefit in each case was in respect of contributions paid during insurable work. I am informed that the daughter has recently fallen out of employment, and there appears to be no reason to challenge her claim to benefit. As regards the mother, the benefit has been suspended and the case referred to the Local Employment Committee. Existing arrangements provide for a review by the Local Employment Committees of the cases of women applicants for benefit, except those on systematic short time. A large number of cases had already been reviewed by the Local Committee at Jarrow, and disallowed by the Insurance Officer. At the date in question, the view had not been completed, and the women applicants referred to were among those whose cases had not then been examined. The local employment committees throughout the country are dealing with this matter as expeditiously as the circumstances permit.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the State has not suffered financially by reason of the undue delay in the revision of these cases?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With these vast numbers there is necessarily some difficulty, but perhaps my Noble Friend will look at an answer I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Lieut.-Colonel Hilder), a copy of which I will send him.

Mr. BRIANT: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if advances are made to trades unions paying the State unemployment benefits so as to avoid the necessity of their obtaining loans to meet the current payments; if he is aware that, as the result of the burdens thrown on some trades unions, they are abandoning the distribution of these grants; and, if so, if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Dr. MANAMARA: The Unemployment Insurance Act provides for repayments to associations of moneys already disbursed by them in State employment benefit, but does not authorise issue of funds to them until they have made the payments. The administrative expenses allowed to the associations by the Act are intended to include provision for interest on the amount outstanding from time to
time. I am aware, however, that in the present very exceptional circumstances the payments of State benefit by the associations are abnormally large, and that it is not always possible to make repayments to them as quickly as I should wish. I am therefore prepared to make emergency arrangements where necessary for substantial repayments in anticipation of the normal procedure.

Mr. BRIANT: Is it not a fact that some trades unions have had to withdraw from the distribution of the grants and that the Potters' Union had to borrow £30,000 to make the necessary payments?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I dealt with that case.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any Government loans are being made to any trade unions for the payment of unemployment benefit, and whether it is intended to do so under the extraordinary circumstances which prevail at the present time?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no loan, and it is not intended to make any loans. What I have said is that I am prepared to make emergency arrangements, and I am doing so at the present time.

Mr. SEXTON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if the cases of casual labourers at Liverpool Docks who were refused unemployment benefit during Easter week and the two days following has been brought to his notice; and if he will give the necessary instructions that these men shall receive these arrears in common with other casual labourers who received unemployment benefit under similar conditions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have made inquiries in these cases and find that they have been dealt with in accordance with the usual practice, that is, that benefit has not been paid for day of holiday. I am causing inquiry to be made into the cases referred to by my hon. Friend, in which benefit has been paid.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men under similar circumstances have been paid and that these men have been refused, although the circumstances are the same?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is what I propose to inquire into. The practice under the law has been followed, but I will look into it.

Mr. SEXTON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the cases of workmen in St. Helens whose unemployment benefit has been refused on the grounds that they had received the annual yearly bonus from the firm for whom they worked; and, if so, on what grounds was the unemployment benefit refused these men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wirrall (Mr. Stewart) on the 4th May, from which he will see that unemployment benefit is not payable in respect of a period of holiday with pay. I understand that in this case it is customary for the firm to allow a week's holiday with pay, and that the present holidays were taken during a period of suspension. The decision not to allow benefit for the holidays therefore appears to be in order, but it is of course open to the claimant to appeal to a Court of Referees in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case men got the bonus irrespective of anything else?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think it is very simple. There is a week's holiday allowed in the year, and the men took it during the period of suspension and asked for unemployment benefit, which was refused

Mr. SEXTON: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that under the existing regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act casual dock labourers employed intermittently for three halfdays per week are in consequence deprived of unemployment benefit for the remaining four-and-a-half days; and will he consider the question as affecting such casual labourers so as to qualify them for each actual day idle?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is expressly provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, that unemployment benefit is not payable in respect of any period of less than one day, and I have no power to alter this rule. A man working three half-days in a week is not necessarily unable to draw benefit for one or more of the other days of the week. His right benefit depends on whether the days of complete unemployment are or are not continuous under the definition given in Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend.

Mr. SEXTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a grave injustice is being inflicted on these men, and ought not something to be done to remedy it?

Dr. MACNAMARA: What was done was done under the Act.

Mr. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman makes no kind of attempt to remove this gross injustice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS.

Mr. SITCH: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has recently received a communication from the Pressed and Stamped Metal Trade Board concerning the delay to give effect to his promise of the 23rd March last, that the numerous questions relative to the scope of its operations would be dealt with promptly; and whether he can see his way to expedite consideration of the matters submitted for his decision with the view to an early settlement of the same?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been in communication with the Trade Board since my answer to my hon. Friend's question on the 23rd March, and on the 25th May I wrote to the Board inviting it to send representatives to discuss with officers of my Department an amended draft definition of the trade, which will be before the Board at its next meeting on the 3rd June. My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that the points at issue are of great difficulty and complexity, and must necessarily involve consultation with representatives of important interests not covered by the Trade Board before a definite decision can be reached.

Mr. SITCH: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the present position regarding the application submitted to him in April, 1920, by the Aerated Water Trade Board for an enlargement of its powers so as to cover the operations of persons engaged in bottle-washing, bottling, and filling, and all subsidiary processes preparatory to the sale of alcoholic beverages, when such operations are carried out apart from the manufacture of mineral waters; whether he has received several requests for his decision on the points raised; and will he say when it is proposed that such decision shall be announced?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Investigations have been made into the circumstances in which the bottling of beer, wines, and spirits, and other alcoholic beverages is carried on, and I am in communication with the trade associations concerned on the subject of the Trade Board's proposal. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, there are many different classes of trades engaged in the sale and distribution of alcoholic liquors who are not at present covered by the Trade Board, and who would be affected by the proposed amendment of the Aerated Waters Trade Order. My information is not yet complete, but, as a result of the investigations already made, I find that the proposal involves a considerable extension of the operation of the Trade Boards Acts.

Mr. SITCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that extension?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am considering that.

Major NEWTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a letter, dated 26th May, from the Incorporated Association of Retail Distributors requesting him to secure a reconsideration of the minimum rates of wages provisionally fixed by the Grocery and Provision Trade Board; and whether, in view of the fact that the rates recently forwarded for his confirmation were fixed when the cost of living was 48 points higher than it is now, and in view of the fact that the bringing into force these rates must inevitably lead to further dismissals of employés, thereby increasing the present evils of unemployment, he will order the reconsideration of these rates?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The rates in question have been submitted to me by the Board for confirmation. In coming to my decision I shall take into account all the relevant factors, including those mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major NEWTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the employers, who have to pay whatever increased rate of wages may be fixed, before deciding?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The employers are represented on their side of the case, and any further representation made to me I shall be glad to consider.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are any representations made by the customers?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STAFF).

Mr. MYERS: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that payment of assimilation arrears due from 1st July, 1920, under the Whitley Scheme have not yet been made to the Irish staff of the Ministry of Labour Employment Department; and whether, seeing that the staff in Great Britain was paid two months ago and that Sir James Masterson Smith gave an undertaking in October last that any agreement reached in regard to the service in Great Britain would apply equally to the Irish staff, he will see that this undertaking is carried into effect?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is quite true that an undertaking has been given that the agreement reached regarding the reorganisation of the Departmental Class of the Employment and Insurance Department in Great Britain shall apply equally to the staff of the Employment Branch of the Irish Department; and my hon. Friend may rest assured that this undertaking will be honoured. But the reorganisation of the Irish Department of the Ministry of Labour presents peculiar difficulties at the present time, and it has not been found practicable to reorganise the Employment Branch of the Irish Department without completing the reorganisation of the Irish Department as a whole. But these difficulties are being examined with care, and I hope that they will be removed without undue delay.

"WEEKLY SUMMARY."

Captain W. BENN: 40.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will now make available for Members a complete file of the "Weekly Summary," as promised in the House on 4th May?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): As I have already said in this House, early copies of the "Weekly Summary" are not available.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney-General for Ireland stated in the House on the 4th May that he would do every-
thing in his power to get the back numbers? Does he say there are no copies on the file in Dublin Castle?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Months ago I asked for all copies, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). I was unable to get them. It is my regret that I cannot supply them to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. MOSLEY: Can hon. Members take any steps to secure copies for themselves, or are they liable to prosecution?

CONSTABLES (TRIAL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the trial of two constables for having beaten and shot John P. Greene, a Kitchener scholar at University College, Galway, on 14th May, 1921, is proceeding; whether his attention has been drawn to the treatment of James S. R. A. Egan, health insurance inspector for County Mayo, on the same day, and the shooting of Daniel Gilloway, at Magmore, County Clare; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with these?

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: On a point of Order. Is not this question, as framed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, calculated to prejudice the fair trial of two constables? It says, "whether the trial of two constables for having beaten and shot". Should not the question be worded, "on the allegation of having beaten and shot"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I agree. I think the word "alleged" should be in the question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With your permission I will add that word. HON. MEMBERS "Withdraw!"]

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the cases of John Green and James Egan, two constables are awaiting trial on charge of attempted murder. In the case of Daniel Killoughrey, the Court of Inquiry, in lieu of inquest, found that death was due to a bullet wound inflicted by Crown forces in the execution of their duty, and that no member of the Crown forces was to blame

PRISON OFFICERS.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 42.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the discontent among the prison officers owing to the delay in promulgating the assimilation scheme; when this will come into force; when it is intended to adjust the pensions of prison officers who retired since 1st April, 1920, and who have not received the benefit of the full percentage to their pensions in accordance with the National Whitley Council Report; and whether it is proposed to pay the temporary staff the bonus due to them from 1st March last?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The decisions of the Treasury on the several outstanding matters arising out of the assimilation of the Irish to the English prison service have now been received, and will be promulgated within the next few days. The consequential adjustment of pensions affected will follow. In regard to the closing part of the question, all the temporary staff in the Irish prisons service are in receipt of the bonus due to them from 1st March last.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the creameries of Glenmore, Glen-pipe, and Mullinvat, and consequently four auxiliary creameries, were closed by order of the military on 25th May last; that all these creameries are situated in South Kilkenny, within easy reach of Waterford and in a district in which no ambushes have occurred and no member of the Crown forces has been killed or even fired at; and that the closing of these co-operative creameries will mean a loss of some 10 tons of butter a day, great hardship to the farmers in the district, and a raising of the price of butter to the English consumer; and what was the reason for this action?

Mr. MOSLEY: 54.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to an order of the Military Governor, issued 24th May, closing down two creameries at Bansha; and whether the policy of closing down creameries as a reprisal for attacks on the forces of the Crown is a part of the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I explained fully the circumstances in which certain creameries have been closed in the
martial-law area in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on the 30th May. In some cases prior to the closing of the creamery, murderous attacks have taken place on members of the Crown forces. At Bansha, for instance, four constables while leaving the Roman Catholic Church were fired at by armed men hidden behind the wall of the Protestant Rectory. One constable was murdered, and the remaining three were wounded. I have no doubt that in the other cases quoted the military authorities had adequate grounds for the action taken.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to my question, which I object to being answered with the other, as it is entirely different, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no attack of any sort on the Crown forces in this area at all; and, further, how can the farmers, who are not allowed to have arms, prevent the Irish Republican Army from trenching the roads? How in human nature can they prevent them from doing it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would really require an argument.

Mr. MOSLEY: 53.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances under which Michael Ryan, of Ballybrack, was shot dead, while crossing one of his father's fields, by armed forces of the Crown on 12th May last?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Court of Inquiry in this case found that deceased was shot by members of the Crown forces in the execution of their duty, he having failed to half when called upon to do so, and that no blame attached to any member of the Crown forces. According to the evidence, Ryan was on the road when challenged by the patrol, but he jumped a hedge and endeavoured to get away. He was called upon to halt three times before he was fired upon.

Major M. WOOD: How far was this man away when he was called upon to halt?

Mr. MOSLEY: How many men, can the right hon. Gentleman say, have been shot in Ireland for this kind of thing?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice should be given of that question.

Mr. MOSLEY: 55.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received any report of the inquiry into the circumstances under which Patrick Goffan, aged seven years, of Ballinagree, was fatally wounded by a shot fired by a soldier on the 21st April last?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This occurred in the martial-law area, and I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that this very sad case was the result of a tragic mistake. Troops were patrolling rough ground in a mountainous district where a flying column of rebels was reported to be operating, and this boy was shot and wounded. The wounds were quite superficial, and at first he progressed favourably, but toxæmia supervened after four days and proved fatal. The Court of Inquiry found that no blame attached to any member of the Crown forces in the matter.

Captain BENN: Will any compensation be paid to the relatives of this infant shot by the agents of the right hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw! Withdraw!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to make allegations of that kind in a supplementary question, which would not be allowed, according to the rules of the House, to be put on the Paper.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: If the House would allow me to deal with this matter, it would be better.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. J. JONES: Black-and-Tans!

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the most serious accusation that has been made against the Crown forces, and not substantiated, I desire to ask you whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Benn) ought not to withdraw his accusation, or substantiate it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have sufficiently indicated, I think, that in my view a supplementary question ought not to be put in a form in which it would not be allowed on the Order Paper.

Major-General SEELY: 56.
asked the Chief Secretary what Report he has received with reference to the destruction of Tincurry House, county Tipperary, on 14th May; and what action he is taking in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that on receipt of the further particulars in regard to this case, I at once asked the Commander-in-Chief to make the fullest inquiry into the allegations contained therein. I regret to state that owing to the great difficulty of communication in the martial law area the Commander-in-Chief has not yet been able to let me have that Report. If my right hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to repeat his question one day early next week, I hope that I shall be in a position to give him the desired information.

Major-General SEELY: I understand there is no doubt—[HON. MEMBERS "Order!"]—I wish to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether he cannot now issue an order that no house shall be burnt down in Ireland except on purely military grounds, such, for instance, as a house being used for an ambush, or if it is known to be occupied by people reasonably supposed to be participants in outrages—cannot he issue such an order?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been a soldier himself, and is an ex-Secretary of State for War. He knows that when martial law is proclaimed in a given area in Ireland or elsewhere, the Commander-in-Chief is responsible. What I shall do is to send the question of the right hon. Gentleman to the Commander-in-Chief, and ask him to send me back an answer clearly defining the ground on which any reprisal takes place in any area.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commander-in-Chief what object there is in competing with arson in Ireland?

Captain LOSEBY: Would it not be a better course to have implicit confidence in the competent military authorities?

PUBLICITY BRANCH (IRISH OFFICE).

Mr. JOHN GUEST: 52.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the principal of the publicity branch of his office receives a
salary from the Ministry of Health Vote; what salary he receives; and, in view of the fact that his services are apparently not required by the Ministry of Health, whether they will be dispensed with as unnecessary if paid for from the Irish Office Vote?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Principal of the Publicity Branch, who is lent by the Ministry of Health, continues to draw his salary, which is at the rate of £800 per annum plus bonus, from the Vote of that Department. The Ministry of Health is one of a number of Departments which have at considerable inconvenience placed the services of experienced officers at the disposal of the Irish Government. The arrangements made are in accordance with usual rules of the service, and there is no reason for departing from this arrangement on the present occasion.

Mr. MILLS: Arising out of that—

Mr. SPEAKER: We really must not have so many supplementary questions.

MAJOR COMPTON SMITH.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: 57.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can give any particulars of the murder of Major Compton Smith, D.S.O., Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who left his home in mufti to meet the monthly nurse who was coming to attend on his wife, and was seized and has since disappeared; and why it has been impossible to obtain information hitherto?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Major Compton Smith disappeared on 16th April, and a communication was subsequently received from the rebels intimating that it was intended to murder him if certain executions at Cork were carried out on 28th April. These executions took place. Five undated and unposted letters written by Major Compton Smith, together with his silver cigarette case, have recently been captured in a raid on Sinn Fein premises in Dublin used as an office by Michael Collins. From these letters I fear that there is no doubt that this gallant officer has been foully murdered.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I ask why, after having made inquiries from the Irish Office since the resumption of the House, I have not received any information on behalf of the widow and her
friends, and it was left to me, through the medium of the Press, yesterday to learn the end of this gallant officer?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must contradict that flatly. Every possible search has been taken and every possible information received has been communicated to the family of this gallant officer. His father is now seated in my room in the House of Commons waiting to see me in the vain hope of getting some news.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I inquired from the Attorney-General for Ireland the moment the House resumed. I have asked almost every day if he had any information to give, and I have received no reply.

DUBLIN CUSTOMS HOUSE.

Mr. C. WHITE: 58.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number and the nature of the guard usually posted at the Dublin Customs House before it was burned?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No special guard beyond the ordinary police and military patrols was posted at the Customs House. It was regarded as incredible that any Irishmen would be guilty of wanton destruction of a building which was one of their nation's finest possessions.

COURT-MARTIAL (J. R. MOYLAN).

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice). asked the Chief Secretary whether a Chancery Judge at Dublin, on the 26th May, ordered the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Military Governor of Cork to produce on the 6th June the body of John R. Moylan, at present in custody in Cork; meanwhile, will he restrain action by the military in respect of Mr. Moylan's person, and, further, whether he is aware that Moylan's execution may take place on 4th June, and will he see that the writ is obeyed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I received private notice of this question at five minutes to one to-day. I wired at once to Dublin, and I shall give the information I have received.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gave you notice yesterday about it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: John R. Moylan came before a court-martial yesterday at
Cork on two charges, one of levying war against the King, and the second of having in his possession improperly one revolver, 30 rounds of revolver ammunition, and 2 Mill's pattern bombs. The trial commenced yesterday. The accused was defended by counsel. The answer to the first part of the question is, I understand, substantially in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, all I can say is that the Court now stands adjourned until to-morrow.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the writ of Habeas Corpus which has been issued will be obeyed by the Military Court, or does it not run?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is one of those very difficult legal questions which I cannot answer off-hand, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if he will put a question down for to-morrow, or put one on Private Notice, I will do my best to give him a fuller answer. These cases in reference to the issue of writs of Habeas Corpus have been brought before the Court of King's Bench at Dublin, and certain momentous and decisive decisions have been come to in reference to the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief in the Martial Law area. On the specific point whether a writ has been issued in this case and as to the result of that issue, I cannot now give an answer.

Captain BENN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, will he say that in the meantime, pending his inquiry and decision, the execution of this man shall not take place?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have already said that the case has been adjourned, and therefore the man has not yet been found guilty.

Captain BENN: Sentence is to be promulgated.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the appreciable improvement in the health of urban
populations at the present time, attributable by many medical authorities to the purer condition of the atmosphere due to reduced coal consumption; and has he considered the possibility of securing these same health advantages by means of measures for smoke abatement when coal consumption again becomes normal?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The time during which the consumption of coal has been reduced has not been sufficient for the confirmation or contradiction of the suggestion in the first part of the question. The whole question of the pollution of the atmosphere by smoke and other noxious vapours is receiving the consideration of a Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Newton. I have no doubt that the Committee are fully conversant with the aspects of the problem to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

REQUIREMENTS.

Mr. BRIANT: 36.
asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated number of dwelling-houses required; and if in the estimate he has made due provision for the replacement of the very large number of existing houses which, though at present inhabited, are yet unhealthy, unsuitable, and frequently insanitary?

Sir A. MOND: As I have previously stated in answers to questions, the general housing demand, including the replacement of defective houses, is undergoing review by my Department in the light of the progress that has already been made, and the altered economic and financial circumstances of the country. It is, however, difficult to arrive at any figure, estimates being necessarily conjectural.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman subsidise the industry, in order to increase employment?

Sir A. MOND: We are subsidising the industry.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must appeal to hon. Members not to put supplementary questions after every answer. There are a large number of questions on the Paper.

DAGENHAM SCHEME.

Mr. MYERS: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether the scheme for developing 2,787 acres at Dagenham into a garden city for the accommodation of 120,000 people, which was commenced last September, was reduced to a scheme involving only 440 acres at Ilford in January; whether the London County Council had by that time undertaken charges with a view to the development of the whole estate, which will make it impossible to let the 800 houses at present under construction at an economic rent; and if he can explain the refusal of the Ministry to sanction the larger scheme?

Sir A. MOND: The London County Council have been advised that, for the present, development should be restricted to one section of the estate. On that section 2,876 houses are to be erected; and there is ample work to be done for yet a long time on the erection of these houses. The obvious course, for the present, is to concentrate on completing this large number of houses under construction. The houses cannot be let at an economic rent, but that is unfortunately the position in all housing schemes, because of the heavy cost of building as compared with the rents, obtainable.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. WILKIE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from societies approved under the National Health Insurance Acts who have difficulties in meeting their administrative costs out of existing allowances; whether he is aware that the increased postal charges will add to these difficulties; and whether he can say when the measure for the relief of the societies by increasing the administration allowance will be brought before the House?

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 46.
asked the-Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to give immediate effect to the recommendations of the departmental committee on National Insurance Administration?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The Departmental Committee appointed by my predecessor to go into the whole question took account of the effect of in-creased postal charges on the societies. I hope at an early date to introduce a
Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee which have been presented to Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE (GERMAN COAL).

Mr. J. GUEST: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether coal delivered by Germany as reparation to France and Belgium is now being offered by the French and Belgians for importation into this country; whether any and, if so, what quantity of such reparation coal has been imported into this country since the lockout in the mining industry; whether the German Government has protested against the re-export by France and Belgium of coal handed over under the reparations clauses on the ground that Germany was required to hand over coal solely on the assumption that France and Belgium urgently intended it for their own industries; and whether he will take steps to prevent this German coal being imported into this country?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before this question is answered, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a misstatement of fact? It refers to a "lockout." Surely it is a strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Major WATTS MORGAN: Do not be stupid!

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that hon. Members will have respect for one another's opinions, and in a matter of this kind use the word "dispute."

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. Since the stoppage of work in the mines 94,000 tons of German reparation coal has been imported into this country. My Department has not heard of any protest being made by the German Government against the exportation of this coal by France and Belgium. I would remind the hon. Member that, under the terms of Annex V of the Treaty of Peace, it is nowhere laid down that the reparation coal delivered to France and Belgium must be consumed or retained in those countries. I see no reason to prevent the importation of this coal into this country.

Mr. GUEST: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the effect of this importation of reparation coal is not to assist in beating down the British miners' wages? In the second place—

Mr. SPEAKER: This must really be purely a matter of opinion. Question time is not the time to debate a question.

Mr. GUEST: I would like to know whether this coal is paying the duty under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that. I am not prepared to give an answer off-hand. I should like to be quite certain.

Mr. DAVISON: Has any protest been made by English coalowners in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think everybody recognises the duty of coal being found for the services which are vital to the existence of the people of this country and it is my intention to carry out that duty to the best of my ability — [Interruption, and an HON. MEMBER: "It is dirty; it is not playing the game!"]

Viscount CURZON: Is it a fact, as stated in to-day's news, that our late enemies, the Germans, are going to provide a subsidy for the out-of-work miners in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the former practice by which Members were paid by their constituencies, until the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the desire of the constituencies to pay their representatives vanished altogether; and whether he will consider this precedent with a view to substituting for State payments to hon. Members a local option to enable each constituency to decide for itself whether it will make such payments from its own resources?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Service in Parliament is essentially a national service, and if any payment is to be made, whether as a salary or as an allowance for expenses, it would seem to be properly chargeable to national, and not to local funds.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been drawn to a letter published to-day over the signature of Mr. J. G. Swift MacNeil, and will he state whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the position of Members voting money for their own benefit; and, if so, what their opinion is?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have seen Mr. Swift MacNeil's letter, but I have not thought it necessary to consult the Law Officers on the subject. The same question was raised on the 14th August, 1911, by the present Lord Cave, then a Member of this House; and elicited a considered ruling from the Chairman of Committees, who, founding himself upon rulings of Mr. Speaker Gully, Mr. Speaker Lowther, and on the opinion of Lord Peel, a former Speaker, definitely decided that he could not allow the vote of any Member to be challenged on the ground that he had a direct pecuniary and personal interest in it. I would refer my hon. Friend to the considered decision of the Chairman on that occasion, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, columns 1680–82, Volume 29, which makes the position perfectly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL MEDICAL SERVICES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to publish the evidence given before the Departmental Committee appointed by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies to inquire into the Colonial medical services; and whether he will give a Return showing the number of medical appointments vacant in the various Colonies under the Crown, and stating the steps being taken to fill them?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): It is not possible to publish the evidence in question, as some of the witnesses were assured that it would not be published, and without that assurance their evidence would not have been given as freely as was desirable. I will consider whether the Return suggested could usefully be given.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he intends, as recommended by the Colonial Medical Services Committee, to appoint a Director-General of the Colonial Medical Service, who would, inter alia, advise the Secretary of State and the permanent staff of the Colonial Office as to all questions relating to the personnel of the Colonial Medical Service?

Mr. WOOD: The recommendations of the Colonial Medical Services Committee are at present being considered in connection with the observations of the Colonial Governments. I cannot yet make any statement as to the decision on the proposal to appoint a Director-General of the Colonial Medical Service.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has sanctioned a minimum salary of £600 per annum, with pension, for Colonial medical officers, as recommended in the Report of the Colonial Medical Services Committee?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir. The differences in the resources of the several Colonies are so great and the conditions under which their medical officers serve so diverse, that I see no prospect of it being possible to insist on Colonial Governments adopting the minimum in question as a hard-and-fast rule. In a number of the more prosperous Colonies the local governments have adopted, and in some cases exceeded, the minimum.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it conceivable that any decent, respectable medical man can be obtained to go abroad for a less salary than that amount?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (DISORDER).

Mr. LUNN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether British troops or officers are being used for the suppression of disorder in Egypt; and whether a British detachment has been sent to Upper Egypt, and a detachment of the Air Force to Assiut?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): During the recent disturbances in Alexandria British troops were called in
to aid the civil authorities and they patrolled the town. No other military action was necessary. I do not know whether a British detachment was sent to Upper Egypt.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that by Treaty and Convention we are bound to maintain order in Egypt, and is it not a fact that the foreign Consuls have made an application for protection?

Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot possibly answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. SEXTON: I gave notice that at the end of Question Time to-day that I should ask your ruling or advice, Mr. Speaker, on a question which, I think, is a growing menace to this House; that is, the gross abuse of supplementary questions to the exclusion of legitimate questions of hon. Members. I raise this question—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not have a long preamble. I understood that he was going to put a simple question on this matter.

Mr. SEXTON: I will confine myself to that. Yesterday hon. Members of this House put down questions of legitimate importance to themselves. There are cases which have happened where hon. Members not only exercised the right of putting down questions on the Notice Paper, but, with the proclivities of the cuckoo, intervening with supplementaries to the exclusion of others.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not an occasion for a speech. I only called upon the hon. Member because I understood he had a direct question to put to me as Speaker, and that is all he is entitled to do in this case.

Mr. SEXTON: I would like your advice or ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this point: Is there no limit to supplementary questions by an hon. Member on questions not affecting the matter he has on the Notice Paper himself?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no rule of the House with regard to supplementary questions. I must say that I agree with the hon. Member that the right is frequently extended much too far in what
I think I may say is a rather selfish manner, and I take this opportunity of asking hon. Members to think of one another in this matter, and not to rise to put supplementary questions—

Mr. STANTON: Like Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

Mr. SPEAKER: —that are not absolutely necessary to elucidate the point in the question. I have often heard hon. Members repeat, in a supplementary question, almost the same words in the question on the Paper, In my view it is quite possible to get through 100 questions during Question Time each day, even allowing a legitimate number of supplementaries, if hon. Members will be good enough to exercise a little self-restraint in the interests of their colleagues.

Mr. J. DAVISON: What steps is it necessary to take in order to limit the number of supplementary questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is necessary to take any hard-and-fast steps, and perhaps an appeal to the general feeling of hon. Members is all that is necessary.

Mr. DAVISON: It will be futile.

Dr. MURRAY: Will you include in your appeal, Mr. Speaker, an appeal to Ministers to give the facts asked for in their answers, because it is only by supplementary questions that we are enabled to get the main facts out of Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not deny that there have been cases where supplementary questions have been well justified, and that in turn has led to an abuse of the real purpose of supplementary questions. My object will be to preserve the rule for its proper use, and if hon. Members support me I think this can be done.

MILITARY OPERATIONS, IRELAND.

Major-General SEELY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of His Majesty's Government to issue orders prohibiting the destruction of houses or buildings by the Crown forces in Ireland except where necessary on purely
military grounds, and the urgent necessity for putting a stop to such actions as the burning of Tincurry House and other houses in the Galtee Valley which have no military advantage."

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen,

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

BILL PRESENTED.

AGRICULTURE AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the First Schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1920," presented by Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: supported by Mr. James Gardiner, Major Howard, Mr. Royce, Mr. Wintringham, and Major Mackenzie Wood; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Water) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Marriages Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Rotherham Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A) [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to assimilate and amend the law of real and personal estate, to abolish copyhold and other special tenures, to amend the law relating to commonable lands and of intestacy, and to amend the Wills Act, 1837, the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911, the Trustee Act, 1893, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897." [Law of Property Bill [Lords].

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the West Ham Corporation [Lords],—Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Batley Corporation Bill,—Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they
had appointed Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dentists Bill) and Sir Samuel Roberts as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Railways Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Police Pensions Bill): Mr. Macquisten.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Railways Bill): the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Frederick Banbury, Major Barnes, Viscount Elveden, Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. William Graham, Major Hills, Lieut.-Colonel Jackson. Colonel Mildmay, Mr. Munro, Mr. Myers, Mr. Neal, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Murrough Wilson.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Railways Bill): Mr. George Barnes, Major Glyn, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. MacVeagh, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, Mr. John Murray, Sir Alfred Smithers, Mr. Waterson, Sir Robert Williams, Mr. Robert Young, and Sir George Younger.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (after the consideration of the Dentists Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Allen, Sir William Barton, Captain Coote, Mr. Charles Edwards, Captain Gee, Sir Philip Magnus, Dr. Murray, Sir Charles Oman, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Raffan, Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot, and Mr. Charles White; and had appointed in substitution: Major Entwistle, Mr. Gilbert, Colonel Gretton, Rear-Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, Major Hamilton, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Donald Maclean, Sir William Raeburn, Mr.
Royce, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Sir Matthew Wilson, and Sir Alfred Yeo.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).

SUPPLY.

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,010 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The Vote which now comes before the Committee has excited very much comment and indeed criticism among Members of the House, and I hope I may add that very much of that comment is, I think, based upon a misapprehension of the law and of the facts. I feel therefore that it would be desirable to state at once the reasons which have induced the Government to give the House an opportunity of pronouncing upon this subject, and also, if I may be permitted, to tender some advice to the Committee thereupon. My attention was called by a letter which appeared in one of the newspapers from an hon. Friend of mine in this House to" the fact that I had made a speech on this subject on a previous occasion, and as I learned that other hon. Members have also discovered the fact, I thought it well to refresh my memory as to what I might have said. I found the task not very profitable, but, at any rate, it proved a sedative after a late Sitting and gave me a half-hour's doze. I am not ashamed of it, but lest there be criticism of my action afterwards I had better say frankly at the outset that I have changed my mind and I am not ashamed to say so. Some of the anticipations which I then expressed have not been fulfilled. Some of the
fears which I entertained have not been realised or confirmed by later experience, and I hope they will not be, for the experiment is not yet at an end. When this proposal for the payment of a salary or allowance to Members of the House was first made I believed it was still possible to adhere to what for many years—for a very long period—had been the practice of this House, that the services of Members of the House should be voluntary and without cost to the country. I no longer hold that view. It is quite obvious that in the altered circumstances of the times there are in this House of Commons, and there will be in every future House of Commons, a considerable number of men who have not such private means as enable them to discharge their public duties without remuneration, and, if it be granted that to exclude those men from access to the public life of the country in the shape of membership of this House would be to impoverish this House and make our representative system less representative, and to hinder and often render nugatory the choice of the constituencies—and I do not believe that any of these propositions will be denied—then, I submit, it is better that Members of this House should receive such sum as is necessary for the discharge of their duties from a public source rather than that they should be dependent upon private sources not their own for the power to discharge the mission of their constituents and to do their duty in this House and in the public life of the country. Under these circumstances, I should regard it, in the light of present day conditions, as contrary to public policy to go back upon the decision that an allowance or salary should be paid to Members. If an allowance or salary is to be paid, then it is obvious that that allowance ought to be adequate to enable a man to discharge his duties without real privation. I do not want; and none of us want, to make membership of this House a profession which is sought for the emoluments which it brings. Those of us who are Members of the House know how very far we are from any danger of that kind at the present time. We none of us want to do that, but I do submit that a Member ought to be able to discharge the public duty which his fellow citizens have conferred upon him without serious privation or hardship.
It was represented to the Government that the allowance of £400 which has been paid to Members since 1911 was, in present-day conditions, inadequate to achieve that result. I do not suppose that there was one of us who did not know that to be a fact, and who did not also feel that in the present condition of the finances of the country, and at a moment when the sacrifices asked of the taxpayers generally were so great, that it was a most difficult and a most invidious thing for us to place any further charge upon the public funds in respect of Members of this House. I think we all felt that, but the knowledge that it was an invidious thing to do and that it might lay us open to some criticism, well-conceived or ill-conceived, does not seem to me a perfect justification for doing nothing, and especially it does not seem to me an excuse for those of us, in whichever part of the House we sit—because this is no party question—who, like myself, draw Ministerial salaries, or who, like myself, have means which enabled us to sit in the House before there was any allowance paid at all. It does not seem to me that I should be discharging my public duty if I refused to consider the case of large numbers of Members who cannot satisfactorily discharge their public duties merely because I was afraid of meeting with some taunts in my constituency or in the country outside. The Government recommended the House to appoint a Select Committee to look into the extent of the grievance, and to make recommendations as to what, if anything, should be done. I wonder how many Gentlemen who have assembled here to-day to vote on this question—well, it is indiscreet to ask that, so I will put another question. I wonder how many Gentlemen who have undertaken to instruct us and the public upon the merits of this question have ever glanced at the Report of the Committee, let alone read the evidence which was submitted. May I recall what the Committee said:
Your Committee are agreed that if the sum of £400 per year was necessary in 1914, and no evidence has been submitted to the contrary, such an amount is inadequate to-day. In addition, this Parliament has been in Session for more days than the average for the last 10 years. While we fully recognise the economic hardship which membership of the House of Commons may entail upon a certain number of its members, your Committee nevertheless recommend that no change be made in the amount of the present salary.
Your Committee were impressed by the evidence submitted, and by their private information, of the difficult financial position of certain members at the present time. They are satisfied that further consideration should be given to this matter in the near future, but in view of the present position, consider it inadvisable to make any specific recommendation at this time,
that is, any specific recommendation for a permanent increase in the allowance or salary of £400. There were other proposals before the Committee. There was the proposal that the sum granted, remaining at £400, should be treated as an allowance for expenses and exempted from Income Tax. That is the proposal which has given rise to the greatest amount of misconception and the widest prejudice and misunderstanding. Here is what the Committee said:
Substantial arguments have been advanced that the whole £400 per year should be paid free of Income Tax; evidence has been submitted that in many cases the expenses incidental to membership of this House greatly exceed this figure.
Your Committee have considered whether the annual payment of £400 per year should be regarded as a salary or as an allowance towards the expenses which a Member incurs in the discharge of his duty.
The amount in 1911 was called a salary."—
I pause to observe that if it had been called an allowance this question would never have arisen. The whole question has arisen because at that moment, while described by the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as being a bare allowance to enable Members to discharge their duties, it was called a salary. That is why it is subject to Income Tax. I turn again to the Committee's Report:
The amount in 1911 was called a salary. If that is held to be the true definition of the payment, your Committee considers that to place Members of the House of Commons—so far as their full Parliamentary salary is concerned—outside the ambit of the Income Tax law is inadvisable—
I agree—
The payment, however, could be regarded as an allowance to enable Members to meet either wholly or in part the expenses directly involved by membership of the House of Commons.
The Committee, therefore, on that point make no express recommendation, but they, so to speak, put up a pointer to a solution which is the solution before the House to-day, namely, of regarding this money and voting this money as an allowance for expenses and not as a salary.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the paragraph from which he is quoting?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Paragraph 13. The Committee considered two other proposals. On the question whether there should be a travelling allowance, they observe:
In regard to travelling expenses, your Committee noted the inequality of expenses between a Member for a London constituency and a Member whose constituency is situated at a distance from Westminster. Members of the different parties in every case agreed that the inequality should be rectified.
Accordingly, the Committee recommended that a first-class pass between London and the constituency should be given to all Members. Lastly, the Committee considered the charge involved in correspondence on public business by Members, and recommended that they should be allowed to frank their correspondence. If hon. Members have the Committee's Report before them, I think they will see that I rightly represent their views.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: According to paragraph 19, the Committee considered the question of granting Members limited free postage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. Friend will read paragraph 20, he will see that the Committee say:
There are objections to each proposal, but your Committee recommend that facilities should be provided for the free postage of Members' letters.
The Government decided not to adopt that last named proposal. It is obviously capable of great abuse and abuse of which the Member might very probably be the unwilling victim. It was really in part to protect Members against improper demands by bodies in their constituencies that we rejected that proposal. We thought that the claim for travelling expenses was entirely a proper one. Admitting the principle of a salary or allowance, whichever you call it, you do not treat Members equally if you pay the same salary or make the same allowance to a man who lives within one hour of Westminster as to a man whose constituency or home may be in the Northern Kingdom. We accordingly propose to adopt it. Then we come to the question of the treatment of the sum allocated to Members—whether it should be considered as
a salary or as an allowance. We were greatly influenced in this matter, and I am permitted to say so, by a representation from my hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) made officially to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the Cabinet on behalf of the Labour party, and stating that they attached great importance to it. It was obviously open to an objection which was taken in many places that exemption from Income Tax will be largest in the case of the man whose rate of Income Tax and Super-tax is high. That is quite true, and, from our point of view, that is the great objection; but it was not an objection which weighed with the Labour party in the official representation that they made to us, and, I think, for an obvious reason. It may be quite true that a man whose Income Tax and Supertax cause him to pay 10s. 6d. in the £ will get more by the exemption than the man who is dependent on his salary and very little besides; but the relief which the poor man receives may be, in proportion to his total resources, of infinitely greater consequence to him than the larger sum is to the rich man in proportion to his resources. That, I take it, is the reason why the Labour party pressed this upon the Government. Influenced mainly by the representation made on behalf of that party, the Government decided to submit this question to the House. I said from the first that we should leave the whole of this matter to the House. We shall not put on the Government Whips, and, if this first proposition goes to a Divison, my colleagues in the Cabinet and myself will take no part in the Division.
Having said that, may I put to hon. Gentlemen in the House and to the public outside, as far as my voice can reach them—and I hope it will, for this is a matter in which the dignity and, in some sense, the honour of the House itself is concerned—may I put to them the facts of the case? The allegation made against us is that it is proposed to do for the Members of this House something which is not done for the community at large, and which finds no parallel in the relations of the community at large to the Income Tax. That is the gravamen of the charge. It is wholly unfounded. What is here proposed is only a rough and ready method of arriving, on an average of the whole House, at the
allowance which each individual could claim as an ordinary citizen under the ordinary law, if each of us puts in his claim and has it separately examined and assessed. At present, a Member of Parliament holds technically "an office or employment of profit," the emoluments of which are chargeable under the Rules of Schedule E of the Income Tax Act of 1918. That is a consolidating Act. The assessments upon Members of Parliament are made in the Paymaster-General's Department, and, as is the case with all other Departmental assessments, there is no legal provision for any appeal. No. 9 of the Rules applicable to Schedule E, and therefore to us in our capacity as citizens—not as Members of Parliament—provides as follows:
If the holder of an office or employment of profit is necessarily obliged to incur and defray out of the emoluments thereof the expenses of travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, or of keeping and maintaining a horse to enable him to perform the same, or otherwise to expend"—
and to these words I would draw particular attention—
or otherwise to expend money wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of such duties, there may be deducted from the emoluments to be assessed the expenses so necessarily incurred and defrayed.
If, therefore, there were no arbitrary allowance, if the £400 be voted as a salary and there be no arbitrary allowance, we, under the general law, may each of us make the claim to our unhappy colleague and friend, the Paymaster-General, to the allowance to which we should be entitled as citizens generally in respect of the expense to which we are necessarily put in earning our salaries. It was found very inconvenient and very distasteful to himself that a Member of this House should have to examine the Income Tax returns of his colleagues, and it would be very difficult for civil servants, the servants of the Crown, but also the servants of this House, to adjudicate upon claims of members, not in their capacity as taxpayers generally—which they habitually do in calling us all to account—but in their corporate capacity as Members of this House, and to define what their duties were as Members of this House and what part of their expenses was wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of those duties. Accordingly a rough average was taken of £100, as being the por-
tion of the £400 which was "wholly, necessarily, and exclusively" consumed in expenses in earning the salary. That is provided for under another provision in an Act, which is not specially or solely applicable to Members of Parliament, but is of general application, namely, Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1913, which is reproduced as No. 10 of the Rules applicable to Schedule E in the consolidating Act of 1918. It reads as follows:
Where the Treasury are satisfied with respect to any class of persons in receipt of any salary, fees, or emoluments payable out of the public revenue that such persons are obliged to lay out and expend money wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties in respect of which such salary, fees, or emoluments are payable, the Treasury may fix such sum as in their opinion represents a fair equivalent of the average annual amount laid out and expended as aforesaid by persons of that class, and in charging tax on the said salary, fees, or emoluments there shall be deducted from the amount thereof the sums so fixed by the Treasury.
Provided that if any person would, but for the provisions of this rule, be entitled to deduct a larger amount than the sum so fixed, that sum may be deducted instead of the sum so fixed.
That is the ordinary law, which is being applied to other classes besides Members of Parliament. What difference does it make to the Members of this House? It makes, undoubtedly, this difference, that an average, by the necessities of the case, will never be the exact result for each individual. It is the mean of varying cases, and, therefore, you cannot say offhand that it exactly fits any particular case. But it is a rough average, and it is as such that the £100 was taken in 1911. I have no hesitation in saying that it was inadequate then, and it is obviously much more inadequate now. I believe that if Members are left without the benefit of the Treasury Rule fixing the average for the whole, if they are left with this sum voted as a salary, and without calling any part of it expenses, they will individually be able to reclaim so much of it on the ground of proved expense that the ultimate result to the taxpayer will be the same, with a negligible difference, as it would have been if the proposal embodied in this Vote were carried into effect.
What are they entitled to deduct? Let me again illustrate our position by that of people outside this House. Take, for example, a town clerk or borough surveyor in a provincial city who attends
in London in connection with a Parliamentary Bill or for interviews with Government Departments. His travelling and hotel expenses are repaid to him by his employers. They certainly are not added to his income for purposes of Income Tax, nor is tax charged upon them. The representative of a commercial firm, like one of the Sheffield steel firms, may come to London in connection with his business. He has an allowance for his expenses paid by his firm. That forms no part of his returns for Income Tax, and no Income Tax is payable upon it. The professional expenses of a medical man or solicitor—his surgery or office expenses, the cost of travelling in carrying out his professional work, and the additional cost of living away from home when he is away on professional work—are allowed as deductions in the computation of his professional income for Income Tax assessment. Those are analogous cases, and I cite them to show that what, in one form or another, it is suggested that Members should have is not exceptional treatment, but the treatment accorded to their like outside this House in respect of similar earnings and expenses. I am so convinced that the operation of the ordinary law will give Members the relief ordinarily which they would obtain under this proposal that, in the present state of public feeling and in view of the misconceptions which have gone abroad, I submit to my right hon. Friends and to those whom they represent that it is not worth their while to press to a Division this formal claim for exemption. I think, if I may respectfully say so, that they and the House would be well advised to trust to the ordinary operation of the law without exposing themselves to a charge that we are getting some special favour not granted to the taxpayer at large when, in any circumstances, we shall get no more than the ordinary taxpayer is entitled to.

Mr. J. JONES: We do not ask for any favour.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say so. My whole argument is to the contrary. It may assist the House to come to a decision on this question if I furnish them with advice which I have received from the Board of Inland Revenue on consideration of what would be the
position in these circumstances—advice which I may say has the concurrence and approval of the Attorney-General:
The Board of Inland Revenue have again had under consideration the question of the expenses admissible as a deduction in the computation of Income Tax assessments in respect of the emoluments of Members of Parliament. A deduction is, as the law now stands, admissible in respect of expenses wholly, necessarily, and exclusively incurred in performing the duties of the office, and the question at once arises in what the duties of the office consist. The Board think that, having regard to the general position which a Member of Parliament occupies in the Government of the country and to the obligations towards his constituents which he by force of custom assumes, it would be wrong to attempt to give a narrow and rigid definition to his duties. Indeed, the duties may be said to correspond broadly to the public functions which the Member actually undertakes both in connection with attendance at Westminster and in his constituency. Upon this basis an allowance would normally be admissible, for example, in respect of the additional cost of living away from home when engaged in his Parliamentary duties either at Westminster or in his constituency, cost of travelling between constituency and Westminster (if not provided by the State), miscellaneous expenses necessarily incurred, including stationery, postage, telegrams, and similar items, secretarial assistance, occasionally the rent of an office. The amount of the expenses incurred on such heads as these would naturally vary in different instances. A London Member would probably not incur expenditure on some items to the same extent as a Member for a remote constituency, and a poor Member would not incur expense on so large a scale as a wealthy Member.
That, I think, states the position. That is the character of the claim which the individual Member is entitled to make, not because he is a Member, but because he is a citizen to whom the laws of his country apply. That gives the relief in substance by individual application which we proposed to arrive at by an average of the whole House. I submit that the House would be wise, in view of the misconception to which the average has given rise, to take their relief as individual citizens and make it clear to the country that we are asking nothing for ourselves in this respect.
I must say a word or two in relation to the question of travelling expenses. If anyone will read the evidence before this Committee he will see the great cost to which some of our fellow Members are subjected under present circumstances. I find one Member, whose home is in the North, who never travels during the
sitting of the House between the House and his home, which is in his constituency. He was asked, "Then you never see your family?" I think the answer was to the effect that his wife was on a public committee and often came to London on business, and he saw her then. Which of us would sacrifice so much to discharge our public duty? Other Members travel habitually, and a large part of the sum which is nominally paid in salary is swallowed up in the expense of travelling between their constituencies and London. As long as you make no allowance for travelling expenses you treat Members unequally. A Member who lives in London, or whose constituency is close to London, has more value out of his £400 than a Member who sits for a Scottish, an Irish, or any distant constituency. But there are wider grounds. This House has a great educative influence on its Members, and it has a great educative influence on the country, if we try to preserve its dignity and its whole tradition, and I hope we may be able to do so. It has had a great educative influence upon Members. We have seen it again and again. It has also had in the past a great educative influence on the country. But the space which is given to our Parliamentary Debates in the newspapers is now much less than it used to be, and the education which we gain in this House in our public discussions has to be carried by us into the country and by us distributed amongst our constituencies. It is in the public interest that Members should have the freest access to their constituencies and to this House, and that they should not be fined when they wish to come from their home to this House or to go from this House to their constituency.
I have seen the suggestion made that these travelling expenses should be allowed, but on a third class scale only. I express my own opinion, but it is an opinion I hold very strongly, that of all the decisions the House could take that is the least defensible and the worst. What is the object of giving these facilities, if you give them at all? It is to enable us to discharge our public duties. I see a right hon. and respected Member in the House who gave evidence before this Committee who travelled down week after week every week-end to his constituency in Scotland in difficult and anxious times. Why? In order to stir up
trouble, in order to foment revolution, in order to overthrow our institutions? No. He is not a Member of my party. We differ profoundly. He went down there as a restraining influence. He served a good public purpose by going. And you are going to tell me you will insult a Member like that by saying, "You may go down third class. You may spend your week in labour here. You may travel down at night standing in the corridor or sitting in a third class carriage. You are then to work all your Saturday and Sunday, and you are to come back on the Sunday night under similar circumstances of discomfort to discharge your public duties here again." It cannot be done. No man could stand that strain, and perhaps only we who are in the House know what the strain of public life is. I submit to the House that they would be wise to abandon any idea of a formal exemption from assessment to Income Tax and to rely upon their common rights as citizens, and I urge that as a matter of public policy it is right that travelling facilities should be given, but I hope the House will give them in such a form as will enable them to serve their purpose and make it possible for a Member to keep in such physical condition as enables him to do his duty.

Major Sir B. FALLE: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, how you read the words, "and their homes or constituencies"? Does it mean both, or does it mean only constituencies? I have not gathered that from the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a point of Order; it is a point for me. It means both. It is as much the duty of a Member of the House to travel to the House and attend the House as it is to travel to his constituency, and therefore it is proposed to give him the right of free travel between his home and the House as well as between the House and his constituency.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I cannot myself think that what I may call the legal part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he indicated how the same effect might be achieved by taking advantage of legal loopholes, was either in accordance with the best traditions or the dignity of this House. I think the proper course to have taken, as they have come to the conclusion that the first pro-
posal with regard to deduction of Income Tax could not be defended under the present condition of the finances of the country, was to withdraw it. But the right hon. Gentleman relies upon my hon. Friends and colleagues on this side belonging to the Labour party to help him out of the difficulty. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"]

Mr. J. JONES: Do not insult us, you dirty dog. Dirty humbug.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The straight thing to do is to act in accordance with what is the general sense of the House, and that is to abandon the first proposal. I want to know whether, if the Government had done that, that is the end of the matter.

Mr. STANTON: No, it is not.

Mr. DAVISON: It is the end of the Liberal party.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is scarcely fair or candid. We are not asking anyone to help us out of a difficulty. On behalf of the Government, I undertook to submit these proposals for the judgment of the House, without exercising the ordinary pressure which a Government has in its power to secure a particular result. I so submit them to-day. I have, in submitting them, tendered advice to the House which I hope the House will accept. I leave it to the House to decide.

Mr. JONES: Be truthful if you cannot be clean, Donald.

The CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. Member for Silvertown against making use of such expressions.

Mr. JONES: The circumstances justified it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have not the slightest objection to the hon. Member's intervention—

Mr. IRVING: We have to you.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Therefore I shall proceed to argue the question of the exemption from Income Tax. The first point I make is that there is no real relief offered to those Members of the House who need it most. Whatever exemption is to be allowed,
the facts as demonstrated in the White Paper—[Interruption.] I am determined to go on in the discharge of my duty—[Interruption]—which I regard as a public one, no matter what the interruptions may be. My first point is that the proposals of the Government give no real relief to those who need it most, because the Report shows that there are no fewer than 77 Members of this House who pay no Income Tax at all. Therefore any allowance which is suggested does not help them. There are 89 Members who only pay £6 15s. Income Tax. There is, therefore, a total of 168 Members who either pay no Income Tax at all, or pay the minor sum of £6 15s. My next point is that it is against public policy for any Members of this House to adopt any means whereby they exempt themselves from the impact of taxation which falls upon the ordinary citizen of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is conceded!"] The third point I make—notwithstanding the facts that my right hon. Friend has brought out, and that it does savour of an appeal to forces outside this House to make it—is that there never was a more unfortunate time for such a proposal as this to be made. The whole appeal which has come from these benches; and from many Members on either side of the House, and, indeed, from the Government itself, has been to urge upon every section of the House and every section of the public to exercise the greatest possible economy in every conceivable direction. To-day hundreds of thousands, in fact, millions of people, are unemployed, and among those millions there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not reckoned amongst those who are called manual workers, but who deserve quite as much consideration as any other section of the community. What will they think when they read the reports of to-day's proceedings, and they see that we have devoted our day mainly to a proposal of this kind, which makes no difference so far as the poorest Members of the House are concerned, but, as far as the better-to-do Members are concerned, relieves them of the payment of money which would otherwise go into the Treasury. That is the last point I want to make in regard to Income Tax.
The question of railway fares stands in a different category. There are many
arguments which can be addressed to anyone who studies this question fairly. I feel the force of the evidence given by hon. Members before the Committee, and the force of remarks made in this House and outside the House in regard to this question, but even there, with all the challenges which no doubt will be made to me—

Mr. J. JONES: Anywhere you like we will face you.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Very well, I will face you anywhere you like. [Interruption.] I am not going to be put on one side in the discharge of a public duty by interruptions or by threats of any kind.

Sir F. BANBURY: They have a bad case, and they do not like to hear it criticised.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to listen to the right hon. Gentleman. If they do not agree with him, the least they can do is to give him a fair hearing.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to this question, which, as I have said, stands on much sounder ground than the other proposal, in spite of the arguments which have been addressed to the House, I must say that, having regard to the troubled state of public finance and of private privation, I shall feel it to be my duty to go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said his statement could not be controverted that the public outside would just get as much advantage as any Member of this House. I do not agree with that at all. If a man outside only gets £400 a year, he cannot return the whole of the £400 as expenses. He has to pay so much for household expenses. He can only return a proportion of the £400 a year as expenses, but in the case of a Member of this House who only has his salary of £400 a year he can return the whole of that as expenses. Therefore he is getting more than a member of the public outside.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend misunderstood my point. I was dealing not with the position of a Member being exempted in respect of the whole £400 a year, but his claim under the ordinary law. The claim of a Member of Parliament under the ordinary law will be
judged in exactly the same way as that of any other citizen.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If we are going to be allowed to deduct this amount as expenses, I take it that the Super-tax payer will also be allowed his expenses. If that be the case, I find that the richer you are the more advantage you get under this proposal. If we are to be allowed these expenses, a man with £3,000 a year is going to save on £300 a year at 2s. a sum of £30. The man with £5,000 will save £45, and the man with £10,000 will save £75. I do not see why you should so arrange this particular allowance as expenses to benefit the richer man, and give the poorer man who has only £400 a year in this House practically nothing.

Mr. CLYNES: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has for once lost his way in regard to what is always a proper practice in this House when any personal considerations enter into a Debate. The Government, whatever else may be wrong in their action in regard to this matter, have been right in leaving the decision to the free vote of the House, and it is strange that one who has so often appealed to the Government to enlarge the boundaries of freedom of Members of this House, and who has so frequently chided the Government for putting on the Whips and deciding matters within the walls of the Cabinet, should to-day so severely censure the Government for following the course which so often he has recommended. In a matter in which it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the personal question from the question of public policy, it is better that the House should be left free to decide what it thinks to be fair and just in the circumstances of the case. Nor could I follow my right hon. Friend in his argument on the question of economy. I am in favour of economy, as my right hon. Friend always is, if you can practice economy without injustice, and it is because of the reality of the injustice, in view of the existing practice in regard to Members' allowances, that this question has arisen. Is it true or just public economy to impose personal sacrifices upon Members of the House in their private capacity because they continue to discharge public duties? The argument of economy may be pushed too far in rela-
tion to the question which we have to consider to-day.
So far as I know the wishes of the Labour party in this matter, it is not that we desire to pursue the method recommended by the Committee. We do not wish for any change to be effected by the process of being relieved of an obligation which rests upon every other citizen in so far as the citizen receives a salary. I accept for my own part, as I think I can for my hon. Friends behind me, the counsel of the Leader of the House, and say that we no longer pursue any question of relief along the path of seeking remission by relief of taxation. We fell in with that method because it was the method recommended by the Committee, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has at such length quoted the evidence of the Committee and the recommendations in regard to this question.
5.0 P.M.
A good deal of artificial indignation has been manufactured, especially outside this House in relation to this question. I doubt whether any Parliament in the world, the humblest and the youngest, would have so lowered themselves in dignity as to approach this question in the manner of approach as we have seen it manifested in the Press and at some meetings that have been held in different parts of the country. Resolutions have been passed and letters of condemnation have been sent as if this modest proposal was the end of all things, and tended seriously to undermine the stability of our Empire. This charge in regard to the allowance to Members, this monetary charge resting upon the State is surely not the last obligation which the public purse can justly be called upon to bear. It is one of the first. I think there are only one or two other Parliaments to be discovered in any part of the world in which some reasonable and adequate allowance for the discharge of these public duties is not made, and in which provision is not made for proper and suitable travelling facilities for those who have continually to use the train services of the country for the purpose of discharging their public duties. I claim that this is a public obligation, that it is a just and proper public charge. As to the amount and the particular procedure, those may well be things for difference of
opinion and discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has given us instances, the most convincing and unanswerable, as to how other people engaged in public service are treated. If they serve municipalities or private firms they are treated in a far better manner than Members of this House. Those who know anything of the allowances given to, say, men who might come to London as they frequently do for days and weeks for municipal bodies and from various public bodies and as the servants of railway companies cannot complain of either the manner or the amount of the allowance given to those who serve the public in this way. The poorest Parliament in the world does better than, or at any rate, as good, relatively, as the mother of all Parliaments, which this House claims to be.
It was stated in the early part of my right hon. Friend's speech that time was when service in this House was undertaken as an honour and as a voluntary duty by men who because of their private means were in a position to discharge their duties. I do not want to go back at any length into the history of past Parliamentary service, but I submit that in so far as you can now find men ready to do this work free it does not necessarily follow for that reason that they are all the better able to do it. If you are to accept the doctrine that service in this House must be free, then that doctrine means the complete exclusion from service of men who have already, I hope, shown that they have some fitness for this service and ought not to be absolutely ruled out of work at Westminster because of the absence of private means. I doubt whether there is any need to argue that side of the case any longer. There should be in these matters some approach to equality of opportunity to serve the State, and if you accept the view that this is public and State work you ought not to be thrown back upon trade unions or private organisations of any kind for either travelling expenses or maintenance in connection with the discharge of these duties.
When the House first decided to make some allowance to Members some years ago I had the view that the figure was adequate at the time. Personally I found it quite ample, and those who were accusomed to a moderate level of living surely must have found the figure of £400
sufficient to cover all personal expenses which they incurred. I say frankly for myself it seemed to be a liberal amount. There has been a considerable change in the value of money since then, and the fact that even Members of Parliament have felt the burden of increasing prices has altered the position. I suppose that there is not another servant of the State, not a labourer or cleaner or civil servant or clerk employed, say, in connection with general attendance at this House or in connection with any branch of the business which is done within these walls from the highest to the lowest who has not received some substantial addition to his allowance or salary during the period of the War or since, and on that account a case is made out for some consideration, for some relief.
I agree to the precise form suggested by the Committee was open to certain objections on grounds which have been amply demonstrated already by the right hon. Gentleman. But I put to the House this view. If we are not to regard the sum which we receive as an allowance, as an amount paid to us in the nature of expenses, and therefore as a sum which properly can be subject to Income Tax relief, and we must take the view that it is a salary, then clearly the salary is now far too low, and as soon as public finances allow of the question being reopened some attempt should be made to remove the injustice under which Members of the House are now suffering. If there be Members of the House who hold the view, in spite of what I have said, that this question has been revived or pressed upon the Government by the Labour Benches only, then I cannot help their delusion; but I am not ashamed at all of their reproach.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You are quite mistaken.

Mr. CLYNES: I am glad to hear that that view is not urged. Indeed, I was going to say that this was not a party question in the sense of party divisions, because there are many other men who are comparatively poor in other parts of the House who must depend to a great extent on public money if they are properly to discharge their public duties. I leave the subject to which I have already referred with the explicit statement that we accept the advice of the Chancellor, and will, of course, take note of the information
which he gives as to how, as citizens, we may seek such relief, as every other person in the community may seek, and no doubt will seek, in face of that information. But now a word on the question of the travelling arrangements. If it be that the arrangements so far made are in the nature of an experiment and are intended to see how far some better system might be reached well and good. One can say little about them. But I hope that the arrangements at present existing will not long continue. It does inflict some personal indignity and some personal inconvenience upon Members to have to fill in a form each time a ticket is wanted, and in some cases to have to explain what it is for. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is not subject apparently to this indignity. I think that he takes strong objection to the issuing of tickets to Members of this House. But I have noted that all he has to do when he passes a porter at the railway gate is to touch his watch chain, and then he passes on without challenge.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see the relevancy of that. I receive a free pass on my own railway and on some other railways on account of my work. That is totally different from the position of a great many Members of this House, including many Members of the Labour party, who never come here.

Mr. CLYNES: I am glad to hear my argument reinforced so strongly by the explanation which we have just received. That is exactly our position. We claim the right to travel, without a personal charge being imposed upon ourselves when we travel, to our work. That is what I understand to be the right of the right hon. Baronet. As to the suggestion contained in one of the Motions upon the Paper that we should be limited to third class, I do not think that many of us would mind that if we are to adhere to what has been our life experience, but even then I think that this is really pushing economy too far. Have we not the right to travel in as great a condition of comfort as even, say, a railway director who is in pursuit of his daily task for the time being, or, say, a commercial traveller engaged in some of the higher branches of commercial service, or as civil servants. I am entrusted by my constituents with the discharge of what is a supreme national service. The representatives of
constituencies ought not to be placed on a lower level of comfort than any one of the classes to which I have referred. But I want to find fault particularly with one condition which I understand to be attached to the use of these railway tickets, that is that no railway ticket obtained by the use of these forms can be used when the House is not sitting. Take the case of several Members like myself. Our duties require regular attendance, and apart from occasions of illness I think that I can say that I have not been absent from the House on a single day for a considerable time past. It is impossible for me and for others to visit our constituencies while the House is sitting. Are we then to be told that during the only period during which we can visit our constituencies we must pay our own railway fare while other Members have the opportunity by the mere accident of living near their constituencies of visiting them week after week? I submit to the Chancellor, who I am sure will see the reason of the case which I am putting, that these are conditions which do require some review of the arrangements with regard to the use of the facilities which are now being afforded. In order that those suggestions may be considered I beg to move, "That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £10."

The CHAIRMAN: A Motion to reduce the Vote might lead to some inconvenience as it would not be possible to keep two separate issues on the Income Tax and the other proposal. It would be better to move to leave out Item A1.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will that prevent a general discussion later on?

The CHAIRMAN: Once that Amendment were moved, the discussion would have to be confined to the question of Income Tax.

Lord R. CECIL: We understand you to rule that until the Amendment has been disposed of we shall be confined to that issue, and that when the Amendment has been disposed of we shall be confined to the other issue. If that is so, will not the effect of moving Amendments be to preclude a general discussion?

The CHAIRMAN: There can be no general discussion until Amendments are disposed of. If anything remains of either item then, there will be time for general discussion at the end. I must keep the
issues distinct. Otherwise, Members might be placed in a dilemma.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I make a suggestion for the convenience of the House? I gather that there is no difference of opinion in the House about the proposed exemption from Income Tax. If my right hon. Friend's proposal is carried, as it might be carried at once, we eliminate that, and we can then discuss the points on which there may be a difference of opinion.

Lord R. CECIL: I submit respectfully that that would be rather hampering to some Members who are in principle objecting to the whole thing. If this Amendment is carried discussion will be confined solely to the question of the relief upon railway travelling.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my Noble Friend is speaking under a misapprehension. There are two issues in this Vote and two issues only. The question is whether you should vote a Supplementary Vote of £10, put down in order that the House may decide on the question of the Income Tax concession. I think we are all agreed that that should not be voted, and we had better dispose of it at once. I submit that my Noble Friend loses no opportunity. It would then be open for the Committee to discuss other questions raised by the Vote.

Commander BELLAIRS: I submit that this proposal, even as it stands, increases the emoluments of Members of Parliament, and many of us want to take general objection to any increase of such emoluments.

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) to move the Amendment suggested?

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, "That Item A (1)—(Salaries and Allowances.—Allowances for expenses at the rate of £400 per annum to Members of the House not in receipt of salaries as Ministers, as Officers of the House, or as Officers of His Majesty's Household, £10.)—be omitted from the proposed Vote."

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to say a few words—[HON. MEMBERS "Agreed, Agreed!"]—I do not understand why hon. Members, who were so anxious a short time ago that this Vote should be carried, now suddenly object to any
discussion upon it, nor do I understand the extraordinary volte face which has just taken place. I wish to say something about the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He likened the salaries paid to Members of Parliament to the salaries paid to town clerks and the professional emoluments of medical men. They are quite different things. It was never intended that the salaries given to Members of Parliament should be salaries on which they could live. It was never intended that work in this House should be a profession as is the work of town clerks or medical men or professional men of any sort.

Mr. STANTON: Or the monopoly of railway directors.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not understand what the hon. Member means.

Mr. STANTON: You will understand by and by.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite evident that the hon. Member is unable to reply to my argument, and that he thinks that by loudly interrupting he will put me down. I beg to inform him—

Mr. STANTON: I will reply by and by.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member says he will reply—

Mr. STANTON: And interject where I think proper.

Sir F. BANBURY: Membership of the House is not a profession, and nothing could be worse than to do anything which would make membership of this House a profession. The right hon. Member who spoke last told us that other Parliaments paid Members. Very likely they do. They should follow our example, or rather they should follow the example of this House as it was 10 years ago, and not pay Members at all. What has happened? The payment of Members was instituted in 1911, and it was done on account of the Osborne judgment. Members at that time received a salary from trade unions to which they belonged.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Do you agree with that?

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly. If a body of people in a trade union think a man is a fit and proper person to be a Member of Parliament and they want to
pay his expenses, why should they not do so? In the old days trade unions paid Members' expenses. After the Osborne judgment that was stopped, and this £400 a year was paid. I do not happen to be a member of a trade union, but I think I am correct in saying that in many cases now the £400 a year is returned to the trade union, and the trade union pays its Member of Parliament a salary, sometimes more than £400 a year. My recommendation would be to do what is really being done now by the trade unions. Why should the taxpayer pay a man £400 a year to give back to his trade union? It is absurd.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I would like the right hon. Baronet to tell us of any single case he knows where a Member of this House gives his salary back to his trade union. I never heard of such a case. I have known cases where the trade unions say that it is such a scandalous thing that only £400 a year should be paid for membership of the House, that they supplement it with an additional sum.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is that not the same thing? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I was saying that I was not a member of a trade union, but it has been stated publicly, and it has not been contradicted, that the trade unions in some cases receive the salary of the Member of Parliament, and in return gave him a larger salary. If I am wrong, I am quite willing to be corrected. That statement was made in the public Press, and up to the present, so far as I know, it has not been contradicted. Why should not that arrangement continue? It is the proper course. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the expenses which constituencies put upon Members. Why should not the constituencies take less? Why should the taxpayers be asked to pay subscriptions to the constituencies? I shall not be in order in alluding to travelling expenses, and I will leave my remarks on that subject until the question of travelling expenses comes up. I agree that one of the reasons why Members of the Labour party are so anxious to take the course they suggest is that they see an opportunity of gaining their ends in another way. That is by no manner of means a proper course. Either the proposal is right or it is wrong. If it is wrong we ought not to pass it, and if it is right it ought to be passed. The last thing that ought to be done is to secure some
Inland Revenue officer who thinks he can gain them the relief in another way.

Captain LOSEBY: The last speaker, in my humble opinion, has merely succeeded in reinforcing the right hon. Gentleman in his original argument. He stated that the £400 a year was never regarded at any time as a salary. That was the main argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I foresee the possibility of something like a clamour in the public Press arising out of the remarks of the Leader of the House, and on that I wish to say something. I would argue very strongly that the original proposals made by the Government, which, I understand, will be put into effect in some other form, could be justified to the last letter, whether they involve relief from Super-tax or not. The danger is that the general public do not realise the nature of the routine duties that Members of this House are called upon to perform, or the extent of the expenses immediately arising out of those routine duties. Although the Committee may not be with me in this, I feel there is a great danger of the ordinary public thinking that the Government has run away from the clamour of the Press and are now attempting to do in another form what they would have been amply justified in doing in the first instance. It is often overlooked that the Member of Parliament of to-day is the connecting link between some 30,000 people and the centre of government, and the tendency is for his routine duties to grow. They involve heavy correspondence and there are many Members of this House who receive as many as 30 letters per day, which have to be answered. There are indeed Members who find it quite impossible to carry out their routine duties without secretarial assistance. Postage charges have to be met and the ordinary Member of this House, rich or poor, cannot escape from certain duties in the way of entertainment. There are innumerable miscellaneous expenses, and the Government would have been amply justified had they stuck to their guns and declared that this £400 was not a salary but a contribution towards expenses, and that alone, and also that in 90 per cent. of the cases it did not compensate Members for the expenses immediately arising out of their position.
If it was possible to argue that this amount of £400 was in the nature of
salary, then this proposal would be a lamentable one in these days when we are compelled to impose heavy taxation on the most humble citizens. But how many Members of this House are prepared to definitely argue that £400 annually more than compensates for the expenses to which they are put in the discharge of their duties. It should be reiterated and emphasised that this allowance, at any rate, during the past year or two, has never been properly liable to Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman in making this proposal was only putting right a matter of Income Tax collection which was wrong in the first instance. The Committee must frankly face the position that the main opposition to the Government proposals comes from certain people who are anxious to bring back again the representation by this House of the leisured classes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—or of citizens with private incomes. I think that is the main feeling underlying this opposition, and it is perfectly honest. It is true that the Government of this country up to a few years ago was carried on by the leisured classes of this country, and was very well carried on. This Committee, however, must face the fact that, whatever feelings may exist in certain quarters upon that particular matter, are not shared in by the majority of the people in this country. The majority of the people, I am convinced, will not accept the position that their representation should be confined to any particular section of the community. Indeed, they wish it to be otherwise, and, whether you like it or not, you will have men representing constituencies in this House who are not possessed of private incomes.
I urge on the Committee to consider some of the humiliating features of the present position and some of the dangers arising out of it. I am inclined to think the right hon. Gentleman has not said the last word upon this matter. I believe eventually he will have to make still further concessions for the benefit of some of the poorer Members of this House. The evidence given before the Select Committee—and it was already well known to Members of the House—was to the effect that there are Members representing constituencies in this House who literally cannot exist satisfactorily at the present time. It is right that the country should know there are Members
of the House, performing conscientiously the most responsible duties, who are literally unable to get their proper meals. Let it be remembered, also, that there is ever present in this House the danger of corruption in its most subtle form. Do the public really want a Member of this House, because of certain popular clamour, to be put to expense which should not legitimately be borne by him at all? Taking into account the difficulties and, as I have said, even the dangers of his position, do they want him to be so situated that he cannot afford to go into the dining room of this House? I am convinced it is only necessary to have the facts known throughout the country for the original proposals of the right hon. Gentleman to have been immediately acquiesced in. I, for one, have the greatest possible respect for my Friends opposite who had the courage to accept the odium of these proposals because they believed them to be right. In several cases, I believe, they do not stand to gain one penny by it, and they have shown great political courage. They have lost nothing by saying that they think the proposals are right and that they are prepared to support the Government and accept whatever odium may be connected with that decision. I also respectfully congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the attitude he has taken up in this matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I think it should be generally understood that the only question before the Committee now is the question of the Income Tax. We are not upon the general discussion.

Sir H. CRAIK: I quite understand your ruling, Sir Edwin, but if I may be allowed, as an old Member, I wish to offer a few remarks upon the general aspect of the first part of this proposal. I am surprised that so much animosity has been introduced into the discussion. I know that my opinions are regarded by some hon. Members as somewhat peculiar and wholly reactionary, but I do not feel I am called upon, on that account, to introduce any heat into the discussion of the matter. For myself, there was no one more opposed originally to the payment of Members than I was. I may have been wrong, but I wrote, I spoke, and I voted against that proposal on what I considered to be public
grounds. I presume that my colleagues who out-voted me also acted upon public grounds. I would feel myself just as failing in my duty if I refused to vote for salaries for Members of Parliament, thinking they were right, simply because they might to some extent affect myself, as if I did vote for those salaries only in my own personal interests. Surely we must be trusted, if we are worthy of our places at all, to vote in all these questions on the large public grounds. If we are not able to do that, the sooner we are swept away the better. I wish to introduce no animosity towards any of my fellow Members, but I have been moved to warm indignation by some of the comments we have had from acrimonious clerical critics and from irresponsible critics in the newspapers. I have never seen anything more insulting than some of these newspaper comments. As if the Members of this House, with enormous responsibilities, are likely to vote in the face of their constituents on a question of this sort from any private motive or any personal interest. As I say, if we admit these criticisms for one moment, we absolutely state that we are unworthy to hold our places. Our own self-respect should compel us to refuse to listen to such comment. Much as I opposed it in the past, I admit now that many of the arguments which are put forward in favour of this proposal are strong. I do not know that I would go quite so far as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, although I admit the strength of his argument. I see that the arguments are strong, and I recognise the common sense of the position that once you have established this you are not going to do away with it, and, more than that, I can see that in some form or other the allowance will have to be increased, as it is not likely that allowances for Members of Parliament here will remain lower than in any Colonial Parliament or foreign Parliament. I think we must look at this in a spirit of common sense, but when I am asked by these irresponsible critics how the House of Commons dares to vote on a question which touches the pockets of its own Members, who else is to vote upon it? Are we to go to our constituents and ask them? Never! You may increase this allowance. I hope it will not come soon, and it probably will be after my time, but, above all, let me warn the Government not to make this a question for a General Election.
Nothing could be worse. It would queer the pitch for the great questions that are coming forward at a General Election, when the nation has to determine upon matters of infinite importance to the Empire. Do not queer the pitch by introducing a bagatelle of this sort, for it is a matter which may twist and turn and take you off the trail. It would be an invitation for one candidate at the Election to say, "There is a difference between the other candidate and myself, because I will not take payment and he will."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is getting very general. The Amendment before the Committee is in regard to the allowance for Income Tax.

Sir H. CRAIK: I wish to be as general as possible, and I said this was a proposal for some method of increasing the allowance made. Do not let it be a point at a General Election. Would there be any harm, if it were found necessary to increase the allowance, in saying that it should not take place for the existing Parliament, but only for Parliaments after this? We could go then to the nation, not to make it an issue at the General Election, but knowing that what we had decided was not for ourselves but for our successors. I venture to ask the Government never to make this a question for a General Election, but let us have the courage and self-respect that decides on the right and wrong of this and not by the scolding of our critics outside, and let us, above all, if we do decide to increase the allowance, decide it for a future Parliament and not for this Parliament.

Question, "That Item A (1) be omitted from the proposed Vote," put, and agreed to.

Original Question, as amended, proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That Item A (2)—[Travelling expenses of Members by railway or steamship between London and their homes or constituencies, £75,000]—be reduced by £45,000."
The total Vote is for £75,000, and I propose to reduce it to £30,000. The
object of the Amendment is to ensure that if free passes are given to Members of Parliament, those free passes should, in the first place, only entitle them to travel third class, as a great many of us do already—and quite good enough too, under existing conditions—and the second object which I have in view is to confine the free railway passes to the purpose of visiting our constituencies and not our homes. I confess I am very much tempted to follow the example of many of my hon. Friends and to move to reduce the whole of this Vote of £75,000 and eliminate all free travelling whatsoever. The present is not merely a time of great stringency of money for the public, but it is also a time when we Members receive day after day appeals of the most piteous character from old pensioners in this country and in the Royal Irish Constabulary who are almost on the verge of starvation, and from many people throughout the country who for one reason or another find the greatest difficulty in keeping themselves from starvation. Therefore, I confess that I was greatly tempted to ask my hon. Friends to agree with me on this point and to oppose this Vote altogether, but upon careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that, in the modified form in which I hope the Committee will carry it, it is not only just but practically necessary. My first reason for supporting the modified form is this. There is a most grievous inequality between one set of Members in this House and another in regard to travelling and visiting constituencies. Take the London Member. All he has got to do is to get into the Twopenny Tube and visit his constituency and get home the same evening, whereas in the case of the man whose constituency is in a remote part of Scotland or Ireland, or in the North of England, it may cost him £10 to £20 in travelling expenses alone, and there are hotel expenses and other matters, on his way and while he is there. Such Members are in a very unfair position and that is really an inequality arising solely from the fact that they are Members of Parliament.
It is quite true that Members, when they come to this House, are called upon to make very different sacrifices in some cases from what they do in others. In some cases a Member gives up a lucrative business or a large professional income, and in other cases he makes no such sacrifice, but in the case I have put the in-
equality arises from the fact that he is discharging a public duty, and it is that inequality which induces me to make this proposal. Cases are brought to one's notice which prove to one that many Members of this House are practically unable to discharge their public duty and visit their constituents, simply because they cannot afford to do so. Visiting a constituency is a public and not a private duty, and it is in that way distinguished, as I think, from visiting one's home, which is a private pleasure, I hope, to all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would point out to my hon. Friend that the allowance is not made merely to enable a Member to go home, but to enable him to come from his home to the House of Commons.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If the right hon. Gentleman proposes only to pay his fare from his home up to Westminster, and let him stay here the rest of the Session, that would be a very good thing for some Members, but unfortunately there are a great many Members who do not even take the trouble to come up from their homes. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider the case of the people who do not take the trouble to come at all, and to cut off a certain part of the salaries they now get. What I urge the Committee is, that there is a public duty upon Members to visit their constituencies. They can go and test the feelings there, and then they know better how to carry on their duties here, and therefore, in view of the existing situation, in which many Members find it impossible to visit their constituencies, it seems quite fair and reasonable to say, "We will give you an allowance to enable you to perform that duty." In regard to the question of third class travelling, my right hon. Friend, I regret to say, seemed to think that those of us who travelled third class are not acting in a manner which is consonant with the dignity of Members of Parliament.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I made no such suggestion.

Sir J. BUTCHER: We all know that many of us who habitually used to travel first class in former days habitually travel third class now, and I am not ashamed to say it. I think it is a duty, and probably in many cases it is a necessity. If, when we pay our own railway fare, we
travel third class, what reason have we to go to the State and say, "Pay for us first class fares," which we would not pay for ourselves? An hon. Member talks about fatigue, but if there are fatigued and tired people, let them pay the difference themselves; I am talking of the average Member of the House, who is not particularly fatigued, and if he is prepared to stand the inconvenience and discomfort of third class travelling for his own purposes, I think he ought to stand that discomfort and inconvenience when carrying out his public duty. At any rate, I say that it is not fair in the present state of public finances to say to the State, "We demand that we should have first class fares for visiting our constituencies," which we would not pay for ourselves. I think that what I have suggested is a reasonable compromise.

6.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether it is not possible to facilitate the discussion and the decision, so that we may have a straight issue on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who proposes to move a reduction of the Vote by £75,000. We do not want these discussions on third class fares until we have decided that question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is hardly a point of Order. It might be a point of convenience. Of course, in that matter I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. There would be no difficulty, so far as the Chair is concerned. At the present moment I can only put the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher).

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: What would be the effect on the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, supposing the present Amendment were carried? I want to know whether you are safeguarding the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. In other words, what is the proper course to be taken on this Amendment by Members who wish to support my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) when he moves?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir
F. Banbury), as every other Member, could move to omit what is left. At the present moment the Amendment is to reduce the amount by £45,000.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Then the proper course for those who wish to get rid of the item altogether, I take it, would be to support the question now before the House, and then, if possible or necessary, to cut out the remaining portion?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would be in order.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I submit, on the method of procedure, that I am really as anxious as any hon. Member that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its mind, and that that mind should be expressed to-day. It is very desirable we should come to a decision, as we have very little time, in view of the fact that other business is interposed at a quarter past eight o'clock. My hon. and learned Friend has moved a reduction in order to give the Committee an opportunity of deciding whether they will grant some travelling allowance, but less than is suggested in the Vote, namely, travelling allowance at third-class rates, and to and from their constituencies only, and not their homes. That is an issue we can settle and decide. Then other hon. Members wish to get from the Committee a decision that we will make no further contribution of any sort or kind. I submit that if we can take, in a reasonable time, a decision on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, which is in favour of making a grant, but a grant on a reduced scale, we may then take a Division on the whole Vote, and if the Committee are of the same opinion as my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, their proper course will be to reject the whole Vote. I would suggest, therefore, that we take a Division on my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment first, and those who wish to allow nothing of any sort or kind should simply vote against the whole Vote when it is put.

Sir J. BUTCHER: My intention in moving this is that those who are against any Vote at all for travelling expenses, should vote with me, and also those who, like myself, think that if any allowance at all should be made it should be limited to £45,000. I desire to secure—and I
believe you think it can be done—that all those in favour of a reduction can unite in supporting my Amendment. Then, if the further Amendment is moved to get rid of the remaining £30,000, that can be voted upon.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not really a point of Order, because Members who think differently are always in order in voting together. But what I am submitting is that there are two distinct propositions. There is the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London that no further expense should be incurred at the present time. That is a clear and definite issue. Then there is the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend that further expense should be incurred, but on a less extensive scale than is provided in the Vote. It is quite true that those who hold these different views can vote together, but that can only confuse the true opinion of the Committee, and I submit they ought, therefore, to be kept separate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is really for the Committee to make up their mind on which question they prefer to have discussion. It is well known that at a quarter past eight o'clock a Motion for the Adjournment comes on. So that the Committee, to-day at all events, has only up to a quarter past eight to discuss this. If the Amendment be discussed, it limits the discussion to the question of a reduced amount, as the Leader of the House said. If this Amendment be withdrawn, or put without further discussion, and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) moves to reduce the sum by £75,000, then discussion would be of a broader description. It is not for me to act upon that. All I can do is to put the question I have put from the Chair, but it might be convenient to the Committee to have this Amendment out of the way, and then to take the general discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. As to that, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

Sir G. COLLINS: If the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member is carried, a smaller amount will be granted for travelling expenses. Will that not shut out the views of other hon. Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Because a fresh grant will be required, and no private Member can move that
the amount be increased, in which case, if this Amendment be carried, will the Government interpret the spirit of the Committee aright in moving an increased sum if that be the desire of the Committee? [HON. MEMBERS:"Divide!"] I am sure the Committee will permit me to speak for a very few minutes as Chairman of the Select Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member to put a point of Order.

Major HAMILTON: It is very difficult for us to vote on this proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, because his proposal includes third-class travelling fares, and I for one am in favour of first-class travelling to constituencies only, so that I go a long way with him but not the whole way. I think, therefore, he might withdraw the proposal and take the Debate on the right hon. Baronet's Amendment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am sure a large number of Members want a clear issue on the question of first and third class fares, and, as one who wishes to vote on that, I hope the Amendment will be put and understood in that sense.

Sir G. COLLINS: Before the question be put—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—may I make one or two observations on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Butcher)? The Committee which considered this matter, after much time and consideration, recommended this House to grant first-class railway facilities between London and the constituencies, and, if I understand your ruling correctly—and I think the Lord Privy Seal agreed with it—if this Amendment is carried, first-class tickets cannot be granted either between London and the constituencies or between London and the homes of Members. The question which the Committee is being asked to decide, I think, is reasonable, and I feel sure that the Committee, having come to a unanimous decision on the larger question, would best consult the permanent interests and dignity of the House of Commons if it could get some general agreement and save a Division on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I appeal, therefore, to my hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division.

Major HAMILTON: I do not think we can go to a Division yet. There is a great deal to be said for the view that we should not have passes to our homes. My view is that if an hon. Member likes to have a home which is neither in London nor in his constituency, he should be prepared to pay his fare, whether first or third-class, to that home, but I think it is entirely unfair to ask hon. Members who constantly have to travel to Scotland, to stay up nearly all night, as they nearly always have to do if they really attend to their duties here, and to travel in a third-class carriage to Scotland. It would be indeed derogatory to the dignity of this House, and, in my opinion, altogether wrong. Therefore, my view is that this Amendment should be modified. I do not know whether it is possible to modify it, because it is in such a form that it is very difficult to do so, but I do think that a Member who is elected to this House is elected for a dual duty—a duty to his constituency and a duty to this House—and I say he should therefore be given facilities for travelling between his constituency and this House, and that all Members should be put on the same basis. Whether they represent Westminster or the Shetland and Orkney Islands, they should be able to attend to their duties in their constituency and here at Westminster, without having to consider the question of the travelling expenses.
I would go a step further than the Government have gone. While I would eliminate the passes to the Member's home, I would say it is most unfair not to allow Members to travel at the public expense during the Recess. Take the position of the Members of the Government themselves. Some of them who draw large salaries, possibly, would not mind; but take the unfortunate Parliamentary Secretary, unpaid, or the Junior Whip, unpaid. Those junior Members of the Government, who are bound, by the public duties which they have undertaken, to be here regularly while the House is sitting, cannot possibly go to their constituencies if at a distance, and, therefore, if they wish to retain their seats in the House, they must, during the Recess, double their efforts in their constituencies. If they have made their home in London, as they probably have, so as to discharge their duties more efficiently, it means that, during the
Recess, they have to pay their expenses backward and forward between London and their constituencies, and it seems a proposal neither business-like nor sensible to put before the Committee.
The only business-like proposal which I think would get the general approval of the House is, first of all the decision the House has already arrived at, not to interfere with the £400 a year, but to leave it as it is, and, secondly, to put all Members on the same footing—that is, to give them a pass between their constituency and London, and to give it in the form, not of a voucher which you have to fill up, and vouchers only while Parliament is sitting, but in this form: That the Government should go to the railway companies and say to them, "We are amongst your biggest clients."—[An HON. MEMBER: "They have done so."]—the same as a large business house would do It would point out the thousands of pounds of traffic it was putting into the coffers of the railway company, and say, "We have so many travellers travelling," and ask for preference tickets for those travellers. That is done by business firms. Why should not we do it? Many, I understand, of the companies have offered, and are perfectly prepared, to do this. Let the President of the Board of Trade approach all the railway companies and make a bargain that every Member of the House of Commons, on election, or rather on taking the Oath and his seat, should be presented with a pass in his own name between this House and his constituency. I have used one of those pink vouchers. I took it to the booking office at Euston and handed it in, and I was presented with an ordinary first-class ticket to my constituency.
I do not say that hon. Members of this House would do anything dishonest. I do, however, think it is a mistake for this House or the Government to put the possibility, the temptation to dishonesty, into the hands of hon. Members. Many hon. Members know that in carrying out their duties to their constituents they do not always go themselves, sometimes their wives go. It would be very simple to go to the booking office and present the pink form, get a first-class ticket, and then see your wife off to your constituency. Of course, a sense of fair play, honesty, and conscience would prevent hon. Members
doing this; but I think it is a very stupid arrangement. If hon. Members are going to be allowed to travel between their constituencies and London, let them travel free so long as they are Members of Parliament. Let them have an ordinary first-class season ticket between London and the constituency. Then there can be no question in the matter. There will be no question of accounts for the clerks of this House to worry over. The Government will pay the money in a lump sum after the bargain has been made. If we are to have passes, do not let us be stupid about the matter, and, again, if we are to have passes, surely Members of Parliament ought to travel first class, the same as many civil servants. The managers of my business travel first class. If Members of Parliament are going to travel at the country's expense, let us do it decently—first-class season tickets between London and the constituencies, and nothing more.

Mr. STANTON: On a point of Order—and I ask for the sake of the majority of Members of this House who voted in favour of the Motion before the House for free tickets and passes. May I inquire whether it will not always be open to any hon. Member who can afford it to buy his own ticket, to say that he will not use the pass? Is there anything to deter him doing that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there anyone doing it?"]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. HOLMES: The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, that the Government should bargain with the railway companies to get reduced rates and season tickets will make the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who opposes these travelling facilities, and other matters, to oppose them more than ever. May I point out both to him and the hon. and learned Member for York who moved the reduction to £30,000 that he is not going to save £30,000 to the State, nor is the hon. Baronet, who suggests the reduction of the whole sum, going to save £75,000 to the State? It comes out in this way: By our first Resolution this afternoon there has been an arrangement that hon. Members will have the advantage of Rule 10, Schedule E, of the Income Tax of 1918, which will enable us upon our £400 per
year to take off the expenses which are wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred in performing our Parliamentary duties. If there are no free travelling facilities given to Members of Parliament these will be allowed to deduct their travelling expenses from their £400, and consequently on the amount they will not be liable to Income Tax or Super-tax. If, however, by a Resolution of Parliament we give free railway passes, then the £75,000 collectively will not be deductable from our £400, except in the case of Members whose other expenses exceed £400 a year, or who get an allowance for wife and children by having no other source of income at all. Except in these cases Income Tax and Super-tax will be lost to the nation. It is difficult to make an estimate, but I suggest that on Income Tax £40,000 would probably be lost to the nation, and Super-tax to a certain amount; in other words, that £15,000 out of the £25,000 would be lost, and the effect of all that is that the hon. Baronet's own Motion would not save £75,000, but £60,000.

Lord R. CECIL: I feel more difficulty in this matter than I have ever felt, particularly on account of the form in which it has been put, because I really do not quite know what will be the effect of any Vote given during the remainder of this Sitting until we come to the final Vote, and I am not sure we shall come to that. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Hamilton) that he does not want to vote for this Motion on the ground on which it has been moved, though he would not mind voting for an arrangement, if I understand him. I do not know what he is going to do when the Division is called. I imagine he will vote, and send an intimation to the Government that in voting for the reduction he must not be understood to agree to all of the Motion and that his vote is given for public purposes. There are other hon. Members who take a different view from the hon. and gallant Member, who takes the particular view that he wants free first-class tickets for himself and all his family—

Major HAMILTON: No, no! Is the Noble Lord chaffing me? I tried to make it perfectly clear that what I wanted was one season ticket for each Member of the House between his own
constituency and London, with his name on the ticket so that neither his family nor anyone else could use it.

Lord R. CECIL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants a free season ticket for himself to his constituency all the year round?

Major HAMILTON: Yes.

Lord R. CECIL: There are other hon. Members who want the power to obtain a coupon for a first class ticket to their constituency to be utilised—I do not know whether only for themselves or for other people. There are others, again, who think with the hon. and learned Member for York that it should be third class travelling. Others, again, think that you should have free passes to the homes of the Members as well as to their constituencies, whether first or third class.
I find that all these questions are very proper questions to be considered, but quite impossible to deal with in the way in which this Vote has been brought before the House by the Government. As I think they ought to have proceeded by Resolution defining their proposals definitely; then it would have been open for hon. Members to move Amendments, to explain exactly what they desired, and to obtain a clear issue upon this question, which is certainly of some importance. My position is rather different. Like my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir H. Craik) I was an opponent of the payment of Members. I thought that the effect of it would be to introduce into this House Members who would come here merely for the sake of the salary, that is to say, political adventurers. That was the fear I had. I have arrived at the conclusion that that fear was groundless. We all of us criticise every House of Commons which has ever existed since we took any part in public life. I dare say I have that frailty, as have others. I dare say I have even criticised this House. But I never should have charged this House of Commons with consisting largely, or at all, of political adventurers in that sense. Such a charge would be ridiculous. It is much more likely that this House could be criticised by reason of its being too rich as too poor. Therefore I do not approach this question with any prejudice against payment of Members.
On the contrary, I am of opinion that having gone so far that sooner or later you will have to go a good deal further.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. If you are going to pay Members you must pay them in such a way as will fulfil the purposes for which you give them the money. I think that is clear, and that sooner or later, in my view, you will have greatly to increase the salaries of Members, if prices remain as they are. I am not sure you will not have to go further than that. I think it is very likely that you will have to have some system of pensions and things of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not advocating that, but that is my view as to what may happen in the future. I can see a good many arguments in favour of it. But now we are faced in attempting—and quite rightly—to arrive at a settlement of this question with a proposal, part of which has already vanished so far as this House is concerned, though I understand my right hon. Friend, having obtained a ruling from the Inland Revenue that the same result may be obtained administratively that would have been obtained by the Resolution of this House—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hoped I had made that matter quite clear. The effect of the fixing of an average by the Treasury Minute was different from leaving the matter to the operation of the customary law though it came under statute. It is different, but I have done no more to-day than to try to define, to give to the House, the principles of the ordinary law applicable to every citizen, and which are quite applicable to Members of Parliament. Those were supplied to me by the Inland Revenue, and for greater security they were concurred in by the Attorney-General. But that is not administrative action, and it means that each individual Member must make his own claim just like each individual citizen.

Lord R. CECIL: No doubt, my right hon. Friend will lay the Paper on the Table of the House, and we shall be able to see exactly what it means. I accept everything my right hon. Friend says, but I certainly understood him to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes), that in view of the ruling which he read out from the Paper, the position would be the same as if you proposed to exempt the salaries of Members from Income Tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide,
divide!"] I do not wish to stand between the House and a Division, but I think it will be better to discuss this question on this Amendment, and have a series of Divisions in which we can register the results arrived at by our discussion. What is the position I find myself in? I find myself in strong sympathy with the view that salaries are too low, and in very strong sympathy with the view that something ought to be done to equalise the position of Members of the House who live near to London and Members who live a long way from it.
I confess that I think this solution is faulty in many respects, and I do not think it is really going to deal with the question. I feel profoundly an enormous difficulty at this stage. After all, several hon. Members have spoken about economy, and to give a vote for an increase of money upon anything I should regret very much. I feel that this is a position which it is impossible to take up in face of the country and this House. I feel that we must abide by what many of us have laid down over and over again, that if we are to economise we must not ask ourselves whether an expenditure is in itself desirable, because that is not the test. We must ask: "Is this a thing which it is possible to do without? Is it one which is really vital and essential for carrying on the business of the country?" and unless it is, I do not see how I could, without the grossest inconsistency, vote for any such expenditure. Although, with a great deal of regret, I feel bound at the present time not to accept the proposal of the Government in this respect, all I urge is that, in view of the great confusion in which we find ourselves, the better course would be to postpone the discussion, and leave it to be dealt with by a Resolution in which we can deal with the matter thoroughly.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I should like to state why I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). I will not discuss the merits or demerits of his proposal, but there are a great many things that can be said for anything that would bring hon. Members in closer touch with their constituents which could only be advantage to the country. I feel, however, that we are the trustees of the people in dealing with the taxes we col-
lect, and we have no right to apply any portion of those taxes to anything for ourselves without the country knowing about it. If the Government think it is good for the country that this should be done, let them state after the next Parliament is elected that they are in favour of issuing free railway passes.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Do you consult the country on everything?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: No, but I would let the country know before a portion of the taxes are used for this purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I wish to say a word or two on this subject because I take rather a more detached view than possibly any of the speakers who have so far addressed the House. I started my campaign in Stoke-on-Trent in 1905 with No. 1 on my programme, "Payment of Members," and I did so because I under-stood fairly well the struggle of democracy and labour for representation in this House. I had read the history of my country fairly well, and I knew that no matter how perfect your representation was, so long as the ultimate barrier was one of money I knew most of your legislation relating to the representation of the people would be frustrated on those lines. I knew, as the old Chartists knew when they made their Charter, that one of the first things, if we were to have representation of the poor part of the people in this House, was that there must be payment of Members. One notices in this discussion to-day that there are not ordinary parties connected with it. It is not a party discussion. Cutting right across all parties is wealth v. poverty.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is not the question before the House whether or not the reduced sum of £45,000 should be voted for travelling expenses? We have nothing whatever to do with the payment of Members, but merely travelling expenses.

The CHAIRMAN: I assumed that the hon. and gallant Member was leading up to that question.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: If the expenses of Members are heavy, either in travelling or living away from their homes, as many of them are obliged to do, then the whole question of self-maintenance in this House as a representative of the working
classes is involved. Cutting right across all parties in this House is the question of wealth v. poverty. I came into this House as one of the poorest Members of it, and I believe at that time I was getting a salary of about 35s. a week. Perhaps it will not be considered flattery if I ask hon. Members to believe that I am a fair representative of my people, but many a time in this House I have been transacting its business under circumstances in which, if my kiddies were going to have lunch at home, I could not have lunch here, and that, I say, is a positive disgrace to any country in the world. As for going backwards and forwards to my constituency, I often have letters asking me to go to this and the other function, and they are functions which naturally a decent representative ought to go to, and I have always had to ask for my railway fare.
I do not belong to the Labour party, and I am a detached unit of Labour in this House, and this is where I am going to cross swords with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I can understand why he does not want me to speak along the lines I am going to speak. I have had to refuse to attend those functions in my constituency many times when I wished to go to talk over matters with them, but unless the particular party or association which invited me provided the railway fare, I had not the money, and I have had to say "No," and times out of number they have had to send my railway fare. Whatever the rest of the House may say, my view is that that is a disgraceful condition of affairs. I cannot understand the right hon. Baronet's attitude, unless he says that I am not a fit representative, and unless he thinks I should be barred from coming into this House.
This is the kind of thing that limits the choice of a constituency, and it cuts right across the social strata and divides the people that can come to this House into rich and poor. I say that is a fatal thing. There are more important things going on relating to this subject than the mere question of squandermania or the anti-waste campaign. There is a great movement in this country against constitutional government. I stand up and I say, "Demand what you like, but if you attempt to defy the law and go outside the Constitution, I am utterly opposed to you, because this representative body is
the place where the nation's future should be decided." Then, wealthy men come forward and say, "Oh, yes, that is all very nice; we are delighted that you have advised your people that constitutional re-presentation in this House is the only way they should decide these matters, but we must prevent as many of you as possible from coming by making it impossible for you to live."
I say that is not playing the game, and it takes away from men like myself who advocate constitutional agitation the one weapon which we have. What does one notice? Take those who have spoken against this proposal to-day, and take the men who like myself have spoken in favour of it. There at once you can see the dividing line. It is a division of money and a division of poverty that we are deciding here to-day. There are a considerable number of friends of mine belonging to the Conservative party who do not believe that, but believe themselves to be actuated by some other feeling. Still one has to remember what is the suggestion in the society in which one moves. I move in a poor society, I move among the working classes, I get their ideas on this matter, but others move in a different class of society, among men who are using their brains and their newspapers in order to maintain the interests of the class to which they belong, men who take advantage of the depression of trade, or of the coal strike, or of any other mortal thing to maintain those interests, and who, unconsciously, become as it were impregnated with those ideas. They do not mean it, but it is a moral certainty that the general conclusion of working men outside will be that this class do not want poor men in the House of Commons. Hon. Members prate and pretend to be very sympathetic to the representation of Labour, but at the same time they will do nothing to assist the poor man to contiuue his work in the House. They will do nothing to assist him to go backwards and forwards to his constituency. At the back of this agitation against assisting a poor man to live in this House and to perform his duty to the public is a deliberate although certainly unconscious determination to keep poverty from this floor as long as possible.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I had intended to refrain from giving my own particular view on this question, because I did not
want to delay the House, but the speech we have just listened to compels me to put forward what I think is a point of view which has so far not found expression in this Debate. I entirely agree that, under present circumstances, it would be impossible and wrong for this House in any general sense to vote money out of the taxpayers' pockets into their own either by way of extra remuneration or by way of relief. At the same time, I have always felt what my hon. and gallant Friend opposite has just stated with so much force, and it is a pity we cannot act on the proper principles of economy without laying ourselves open to reproaches like those to which my hon. and gallant Friend has just given expression. I am prepared to vote for this particular form or some other form of granting an addition to the remuneration of Members of this House who require it. It can be done either by way of free railway travelling or in other methods. But I am not prepared to vote any money into the pockets of Members who do not require it. I believe the taxpayers of the country would be prepared to pay the railway fares—either third class or first class—of the hon. and gallant Member in order to allow him to visit his constituency, but I do not believe that the taxpayers should be asked to give a first class ticket to the President of the Local Government Board to enable him to go to Swansea.
I know it may be suggested that everyone should be placed on the same footing. We all respect my hon. and learned Friend for telling us of his difficulties. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. But the income of everyone is known, either through the Income Tax officials or by other means, and the principle of making a declaration of insufficient income is already accepted in the case of political pensions, because, as is well known, statesmen or politicians, who in past years have held high office, have been enabled to get a pension provided they made a declaration to the effect that their private means were insufficient to enable them to maintain a proper position. What then is the objection to an hon. Member who, bonâ fide, requires expenses for travelling or relief from taxation, or additional remuneration, to making a declaration to that effect? I do not mind what machinery is adopted for the purpose, but I do suggest that
that is a perfectly right and just principle upon which to proceed. I cannot allow my hon. and gallant Friend to reproach me personally with being un-willing to grant this assistance where needed, but I do object to his suggestion that it is a case of Wealth versus Poverty. I am not myself a wealthy man, and I am not prepared to allow such a reproach to be levelled against me. I will not delay the Committee any longer. I have stated the principle on which I am prepared to act, and I repeat that I am willing to vote for the grant of this assistance to those who need it.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: There is no Member of this House for whom I have greater respect than the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Colonel Ward), and I should be very sorry if it went out to the country that I or any of my hon. Friends had any such motives as he has imputed. I am sure none of us desire to exclude my hon. and gallant Friend or men like him from this House. If we vote against this proposal it is not for the reasons he has suggested, but because we have regard for the credit of this House and we feel that nothing would more lower its prestige than that at a time like this we should take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and put it into our own. [Interruption.] I have been waiting a good many hours for an opportunity to speak on this subject, but I am prevented making myself heard by the interruptions of hon. Members.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot but think that hon. Members are under a misapprehension as to the position. The question before the Committee is one of railway fares, and any argument relating to railway fares is of course relevant. Hon. Members may oppose a reduction of the grant on the ground that it goes too far, and they may also oppose it because it does not go far enough. But when that question is disposed of, then the main vote again comes under discussion. It appears to me to make no difference whether the discussion goes on till a quarter-past eight, when two Divisions will be necessary, or whether the Amendment is disposed of now.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I quote the words of Solomon, who declared that there was a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing? This is not
the time for us in this House to embrace the opportunity of enriching ourselves at the expense of the taxpayers. It is a time to refrain. I would remind hon. Members that within the last few days the Treasury have issued a notice to the various Government Departments declaring that in the interests of economy it is necessary to cut down expenditure in all Departments by 20 per cent. Therefore this is not an opportune time to sanction expenditure of this nature. We as trustees of the public purse must not put money into our own pockets, particularly when unemployment is rife and we see so many people living on doles, and in every direction witness so much misery and suffering. Putting it on the lowest ground, it would be extremely unwise on our part to vote this money. I am perhaps a better democrat than some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, because I believe it is not right morally, whatever may be the legal aspect, to vote ourselves increased remuneration without having first submitted the question to our constituents. Every Member of his House who addresses meetings in the country will find himself faced with the plain question, "Did you, or did you not, at a crisis like this, take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and put it into your own?" I would welcome some extra money, but I have a preference for getting it honestly, and I do not believe I should be acting honestly unless I first got the consent of my constituents. That may be too democratic a view for those who interrupt me and who evidently would prefer the more autocratic procedure of deciding such a point for themselves without consulting the people out of whose pockets the money is to come. We are trustees for the taxpayers of the country. I protest against the suggestion that because we, in the interests of the taxpayer, are opposed to putting this money into our own pockets at this particular time, that we are therefore trying to exclude men like my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) from this House. I should have no objection whatever after the next Election if Members who were then returned were to get their travelling expenses with the consent of the people.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: On a point of Order. What are we discussing?

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I understand, Sir, that at all events you are satisfied that I am keeping my remarks to the point. I am protesting, first, against the insinuation that I and my friends are actuated by unworthy motives and are trying to exclude from this House men who are not so well off as ourselves and, secondly, against our taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets and putting it, without their authority, into our own.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: After the speeches that have been made, including what I could hear of the last speech, I have been very much led to the conclusion that the proposals of the Government ought to be supported. I was very much impressed by what the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) said. None of us could have listened to him without being impressed. I was also impressed by the remark of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), namely, that politics ought not to be a profession. That used to be thought; but I am not sure it would not be wiser if it were the case. There is no use pretending that anything the politician at present gets makes it a profession for anybody. There is nothing in it. It is neither a salary nor anything else, nor would having the railway expenses paid make it so. As one who travels 50,000 miles a year, I have a considerable interest in railway expenses, and I should like to take the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and make him travel through the night, sometimes for 12 hours and sometimes for two nights following.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I very often do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Third class?"]

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. and learned Member does not do it once a week. Personally, when I travel through the day, I always travel third class, because, as a rule, the company is better. As a rule, when you are travelling first class, you either meet Government officials with war bonuses or the small remainder of war profiteers who are alive. When, however, you are travelling through the night, you must be able to get a seat; it is impossible that you can live otherwise. I believe that the true way to deal with this difficulty of Members' payments is to make politics what the hon. Baronet (Sir F.
Banbury) deprecates, a profession; to diminish the number of Members of the House of Commons, and pay them proper salaries with clerks and offices. There are a good many hon. Members for whom, in my opinion, £400 a year is far too much, and it would pay the country well to give them £400 a year to stop away. Some of them are the most diligent Members in the House. I have noticed a curious thing in the country, and I have met a good many working men. I have found the idea amongst them that the suggestion of exemption from Income Tax was not sound, but that the payment of railway expenses was very largely approved of. They are much the nicest constituents to have, and very much the most considerate; it is a curious thing, and I have noticed it in my constituency. My constituency is almost entirely working class, and is composed of the most kindly and considerate constituents a man could have. Never does one of them write a letter but he encloses a stamped envelope. If I were to represent the City of London or some of the wealthy constituencies the electors would never think of doing that, and I should have to pay for the reply myself. I found, when talking with a great many of the working men, that while they thought that the Income Tax sould not be remitted they were of opinion that it was right to allow travelling expenses. They see me go up and down every week and they know that I do not live on air. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or water!"] They sympathise thoroughly and extremely with the strong efforts which I make to prevent them being compelled to live partially on water. That being the position, I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for York is a niggling, silly little suggestion, which one would not expect from a man of his scholastic attainments.
The true situation has been put by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent. After all, we are committed to this. I admit that the people were not consulted in 1911, but if you had been going to have it then you would have needed a totally different constitutional situation. The late Sir William Arrol, when he joined this House, said if he did his business as the House of Commons did its business he would have been bankrupt in six months. The question is, are you going really to have a representative Assembly? Are you only going to
have it representative of that particular class of men whose fathers were very industrious and made a lot of money and enabled them to come into this House in their tender years, or by men who have to fight their own way through the world? Are you going to have splendid patriotic representatives like the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent, and some of my hon. Friends on the other side, with whose politics I most heartily disagree—I do not include all of them?Are you going to have a representative Assembly, or are you not? If you are, then the least you can do is to see that hon. Members are able to arrive at the Assembly and to be present to fulfil their duties.

Mr. IRVING: I have listened with considerable interest to this Debate and I have come to the conclusion that the opposition to the proposal for free railway travelling is not, as the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent so charitably said, unconscious, but that a considerable portion of it is directly conscious opposition aimed at the retention of this House, as far as may be, as a preserve for the multi-millionaire and the landed aristocracy. It is very certain that for a long time this House was in no sense representative of the country at all. It was a class preserve for the aristocracy. Then followed the rise of the wealthy classes in this country, and the House took upon itself a new character. Between the representation which the aristocracy and the plutocracy to-day have in this House and their complete control of another place, Parliament is still subservient to class interests, and is not an Assembly which represents the people in any real sense of the term. A good deal of the speeches which have been delivered would lead one to believe that the makers of them claim to be some kind of stained glass angels, and that they would not, under any circumstances, vote money into their pockets. We had an example during the present week how the very same class of men used this House, and they are using it to-day to vote money into their own pockets for their own personal use and privilege, although it might not be in the form of salary. Take the discussion on the Railway Bill. Did we find the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) modestly declining to take part in the
discussion because his personal and monetary interests were concerned? Very far from it. As a matter of fact where their monetary interests are concerned both railway shareholders and directors, and a very large company of manufacturers in various industries have, in my presence in this House, both argued and voted and intrigued to further their own interests from a monetary point of view and the interests of the class to which they belong.
How can this House be said to be representative of the people in any real sense of the term, when you think of what is the status of the great mass of the people outside this House, and recollect how few men from the ranks of the Labour class are allowed, even under present conditions, to get a place in this House to represent the people who sent them? I ask the House to vote this money because, although it is not in the direct sense a salary for services rendered, it is an addition to the emoluments which a Member of this House receives, and it cannot be said in any reasonable sense that the addition is not required and is not, in existing circumstances, a moderate one, which ought to be made notwithstanding any cry of economy. I have heard it said during the Debate that there are certain hon. Members who are willing to concede this or any other addition to such Members as make a declaration that they are in needy circumstances, and the analogy was mentioned of ex-Cabinet Minsiters who are, or have been, in receipt of pensions. The question was asked, Why need a prospective candidate for Parliament object to doing what the Cabinet Minister does? I think I can supply a farily effective answer to that. The two questions are not relative in their application. The Cabinet Minister, in the main, has done his service, and is retiring to live in comfort and ease, probably upon a worthy record of service in the past, and he has to meet no criticism from that point of view, and certainly does not suffer politically. On the other hand, hon. Members in this House are sufficiently acquainted with the dodges of political elections to know that, in every case where a Labour candidate was standing for Parliament, Liberals and Conservatives and also Coalitionists—who are a blend of both—would use the fact that he had to take a salary for his services to his
political disadvantage, by comparing with him themselves as people who would not be a burden upon the community.
If these sentiments are really genuine, and the House passes this proposal, leaving it free to each individual Member to take the salary or travelling expenses if he so requires, there is no obligation upon any one of those high-minded Members who think it derogatory to their dignity or to their capacity to serve the country in this House, to take that salary or those expenses. For men to make those pleas in this House and then, because the opportunity is presented to them by the passing of legislation, to be amongst the first to claim the salary and the passes, savours of very much of humbug and hypocrisy. In no circumstances that you can imagine can you ever make this House of Commons representative of the common people until you recognise that work in this House cannot be carried on except at a fairly high level of expenditure, judged from the common average point of view, and that, if you refuse to meet that expenditure on the part of men who have not a sufficiency of wealth accumulated in other ways—and a good deal of it accumulated in ways far more derogatory to those who possess it than the taking of a salary for public service duly rendered—in that case you close the door of the House of Commons even to the small representation which Labour possesses to-day, and you make it a very much harder and longer period ere that element can grow to a sufficient extent in this House to make it truly representative of the people.
I have also heard it said that the trade unions, when they put forward candidates, ought to pay them. I fail to understand the point of view of those who, while preaching high ideals, recommend very low practices. A man comes to this House as a representative, not of a union, but of a constituency. No union, nor all the unions put together, can elect one single Member of this House of Commons. A union, like any other political organisation, like, perhaps, a company of railway directors or of bankers, may, and I have little doubt does, nominate certain representatives of their class and ask constituencies to elect them. But there are not enough individual representatives of those interests or of individual trade
unions in most constituencies to do more than put forward a candidate and render considerable aid to his election. When he is elected he is the servant, in theory, at any rate, of the whole constituency. Even I, as a Labour Member, take some pride in the fact that a considerable part of my constituents, who are nominally well-to-do people, whilst disliking my politics, are not at all averse from my representing the constituency, and whenever there is any service that I can render them, they are always quite free and quite friendly in asking me to do that service for them. But if I were paid, not by the State but by the particular organisation to which I belong, could I reasonably be expected to hold as independent a position between the various conflicting interests in my constituency as I can to-day, receiving my pay from no particular body of people but from the House of Commons as a whole? The truth of that must be realised.
Furthermore, even to-day we have this fact, which is none the less regrettable because it concerns great unions than when it concerned wealthy men alone. Many a man who has spent his life in public service in a constituency, and is in every way a fit candidate to represent the constituency, is to-day being turned down because he belongs to no great union, and because other members or officials of unions which have money behind them secure the nomination of their union. Even to-day, therefore, there is a narrowing of the field from which candidates can be drawn, and wealth, even in the working-class element, counts for a great deal in the selection of a candidate—probably even more, in many instances, than capacity and proved service. I would ask the House to realise that, despite anything that has been said to the contrary, the plea made with such fervour by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke has its reflection in the facts observable in this discussion. The main opposition to these proposals, and the opposition to them outside the House and through the Press, comes from men who, from my point of view, ought to be ashamed to give utterance to it, because it in no sense applies to themselves. The way is free for them to enter this House, and, whatever the reason may be, the effect of the opposition they are putting up is to
try to raise a barrier by men who have means behind them or wealthy friends to back them. I would ask the House to abandon that attitude towards this question, and frankly to realise that the time has come when it should be recognised that payment of Members has been sufficiently long in vogue for the country to have expressed its adverse opinion had that really been in existence. The fact that it has been properly accepted in the main by public opinion outside this House warrants the proposal which is now before us. It is not the initiation of any new principle, but only a very small attempt to bring more into harmony with the needs of the situation a principle which has been accepted by the country long ago.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: It is not my intention to stand between the Committee and its decision for more than a very few minutes. As far as I understand the matter, we have been advised that we can claim on our salaries an Income Tax allowance in respect of our expenditure on railway fares, and to those hon. Gentlemen who, perhaps, have not been here during the afternoon, but have been more pleasurably entertained elsewhere, I would suggest that we ought to bear in mind, in considering this question of railway fares, that the Leader of the House has told us, as far as I can make out, that under the ordinary law we can practically get our £400 a year net. The public will realise that fact, and will realise, therefore, that Members of this House are £100 per annum better off than they were when they were elected at the General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!'] I think that is not an unfair statement. This, perhaps, is one of the most vital questions that we have discussed for a very long time, and I think that one is entitled to make one's views known. According to the statement of the Leader of the House to-day, it will be possible for a Member of Parliament to get his £400 a year net, and that is an improvement of £100 a year. At the time of the General Election in 1918, the cost of living was not very much higher in this country than it is at the present moment, when the recent decreases are taken into account. The consequence is that, in view of what we have learned to-day, we are better off than we were when we were elected at the time of the General Election in 1918.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) made a most pathetic speech and pointed out how he had come into the House at a time when his income was £91 per year. But he was speaking of a time long before payment of Members took place. I suppose there is not a single Member who is not looking round to see how he can gather up another £100 in order to get through. Certainly, younger sons of large families are finding themselves in that position, though they may have been considered fairly well off before the War. Everyone is finding life difficult. At this hour there are thousands of people—am I exaggerating when I say there are millions of people?—who are finding it extraordinarily difficult to make both ends meet and are really suffering tremendous privation, and even though it may be that all the things we have heard to-day are true, and of course they are, I only want to ask on the main principle, are we justified, before a General Election has taken place, at this moment when we are telling the workers that industry can only survive by a cut in their wages, and after we have heard that our position is practically improved, if we choose to take advantage of it, by £100 per annum, in voting ourselves railway fares?

Mr. STANTON: Yes, those who are too-poor.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I am sorry to differ from the hon. Member, for whom I have the greatest admiration, but I tell him there are thousands of people who have sufficient brains to make £50, £60, or £100 by other pursuits than Members of Parliament who would be glad of the hon. Member's job at £400 a year net. But it does not seem to me that that is the point at issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] The other side has a right to be stated. The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Pennefather) was practically howled down. That is not the way to treat a question of this kind. The question is not one as between first and third class fares, or fares to our homes or to our constituencies. We have been told by the Government that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Do we mean that, or do we not? If we mean it, are we not prepared to make sacrifices something like those who are much worse off than ourselves? Are we not prepared to wait until the General Election has taken place and the public
has had an opportunity of deciding? Are we not prepared to take our share of suffering and difficulty with the rest of the country?

Mr. C. WHITE: I think the Government should have accepted the Report of the Select Committee in its entirety without altering it in the least. I am not going to impute motives to any hon. Member on the other side as to why he has spoken as he has and is going to vote as he is. I have some very strong opinions sitting on that Committee, and I issued a special Report of my own. But I want to speak as to the possibility of some Members being able to come to the House and the difficulties they have to contend with. Many of those who have spoken to-day do not know at all the difficulties of the Member who has to live on his salary, and I am going to give, following on what the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) has said, a concrete case, and that is my own. This is not theoretical. It is not a fairy tale. It is what actually happened. I was elected to Parliament in December, 1918. Parliament sat last year for 36 weeks. My home is in my own constituency. I travel there every week. My train fare each week is 46s. That, for 36 weeks, amounts to £82 16s. Five days a week apartments and food in London—and I do not think any hon. Members are living very much cheaper—cost me some-thing like 15s. a day. That amounts to £135. A man who is well known to the working people—and I am not a member of the Labour party, but a very uncompromising Radical—spends 7s. 6d. a week in postage throughout the year. The first year I was in Parliament my postage amounted to over £40. That amounts to £19 10s. My Income Tax is £6 15s. I do not want to be relieved of it, and if I had had an opportunity of voting I should have voted for its continuance, though I admit the Leader of the House has made out a case which I did not expect to hear from him. My telegrams come to £3 16s., which is two a week for the time the House is sitting. Even a Member like myself has to indulge sometimes in a telegram. That is a total, for 36 weeks, of £247 13s., leaving considerably under £3 a week during the whole year to keep a home in my constituency
and to attend to my duties in Parliament. It may be said with truth that Parliament could well do without me. I do not often seek the limelight. I am available for Committees. Many times when Members of Parliament are getting something from a very lucrative profession in the City and are not here, I may be of some use. There is nothing allowed in this for champagne, cigars, a glass of beer, or even a newspaper, and if the House were to sit, as I think it ought, for 40 weeks in the year so that we might not have need to sit late at night or all night, my expenses would amount to much more than that.
I am not recommending relief because I am a poor man. If I am a poor man, I am a proud man, at any rate, as far as that is concerned, and the only relief I recommend, and I recommended it in Committee—and I am going to vote in, favour of the Amendment for third class tickets—is that a Member should have a free pass from Parliament to his constituency. It is true I recommended a limited amount of postage, confined to 40 letters a week. I believe a Member should have free railway facilities because he should be a real connecting link between Parliament and the constituency that he represents. It is not only an advantage to the constituency to have a Member in constant touch with it whether he lives in it or whether he is continually going there. I have served on county and local authorities in Derbyshire for nearly 30 years and there are so many Acts delegated to local and county authorities that it is a great advantage to have a live member who is able to keep in constant touch with those bodies to see how those Acts are administered. I have addressed many housing meetings and have attended them at my own expense. Small holdings, pensions—and one of the things I recommended free postage for was because of the great delays one often finds in dealing with pensions—unemployment, National Health Insurance, old age pensions, acquisition of land for ex-service men—a real live Member of Parliament can be of active assistance to his constituency in all these things. A Member of Parliament is often called upon to assist and advise in matters of this kind and even to interview local bodies in his constituency. I cannot afford to travel up and down at my own expense. From this stand-
point I support the Government and only do we differ in this, that I think the ticket should be third class instead of first. I have never bought a first class ticket in my life and I am not going to ask the Government to buy something for me that I should not buy for myself. I am no sham democrat. I am prepared to carry out what I have practised the whole of my life. Here again there is a hardship inflicted on poor Members like myself. The Government intend, as I understand it, to return to Season Ticket Holders the proportion of the cost since 1st April. I cannot afford a season ticket, and I could give the reasons for that if I were asked, I have spent over £12 on my tickets and I am not to be allowed to receive that back again. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) said it was quite easy for a Member of Parliament to get another £50 or £60 a year. I agree, if he will sacrifice his honour and his principles it is quite easy. I have been tempted myself, with the little ability that I have, to, take up some position of that sort. During the sittings of that Committee many suggestions were made. "Divide!"] Many of those who are saying "divide" have never read the Report. I examined every one of the witnesses and I oppose an increase of salary and I oppose a subsistence allowance, but it is in the public interest that a Member should be in constant touch with his constituency and for that reason I support the granting of free railway facilities and I again appeal to the Government to accept the Report of the Select Committee in its entirety and thus remove the difficulties which are in the way.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I am opposed to this measure to give Members of Parliament free railway passes, not from the point of view of whether it is right or wrong that they should have them, but from the point of view that the financial condition of the country is such that it is not right that Members of Parliament should exempt themselves from those hardships that are falling on other members of the community. There is a very large section of the population—retired persons, persons living on small fixed in-comes, pensioned people and others—who find it almost impossible even to exist. When those people read that Members of Parliament have exempted themselves
from these hardships, it stands to reason that a large section of the population will be exasperated. This is a very important question, and outside this House it is one of the most important questions of the day. People will read to-morrow the proceedings in this House with the keenest interest. When we are faced with a crisis in industry and a slump in trade such as has never been known in history, I do appeal to Members of Parliament not to exempt themselves from any hardships there may be, at the present time. I was exceedingly glad that the proposal in regard to the remission of Income Tax was dropped, and I hope that hon. Members will not exempt themselves from the hardships of increased railway fares.

Mr. FORD: I am entitled, as representing a Northern constituency, to speak on the question of railway passes. Under normal circumstances I would have supported the paying of first-class railway fares, in order to equalise the position of those who live far from Westminster, and in that way overcome the geographical difficulty, but I agree that this is not the time to do it. I was tremendously impressed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), but a fallacy underlay his argument, and that was that the Division in this House between those who vote for and against these railway passes was a Division between wealth and poverty. He forgot one class of poor who are the most hardly oppressed class, and that is the men and women who live on pensions or trust funds and other means which they have saved, and who have not the advantage that the comparatively poor trade unionists have of being able to strike and get an increased wage. An hon. Member on the other side has admitted to me that that is a hardship, and it affects a large class. Many people seem to think that only numbers count; but in justice we must remember these poor people, and we are not entitled to vote any further benefit to Members of this House until the conditions of the country are better and this charge will not fall with such overwhelming weight upon these poor people.

Question put, "That Item A (2) be reduced by £45,000."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 213.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perring, William George


Astor, Viscountess
Guest, Major Hon. O. (Leicester)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rae, H. Norman


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Ramsden, G. T.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Houston, Robert Petterson
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Briant, Frank
Hurd, Percy A.
Sugden, W. H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lindsay, William Arthur
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Martin, A. E.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Elveden, Viscount
Middlebrook, Sir William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Ferrest, Walter
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wise, Frederick


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morrison, Hugh
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Galbraith, Samuel
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gilbert, James Daniel.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Glanville, Harold James
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir J. Butcher and Mr. Lane-Fox.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hallwood, Augustine


Adkins Sir William Ryland Dent
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cope, Major William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hallas, Eldred


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hartshorn, Vernon


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hills, Major John-Waller


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hirst, G. H.


Atkey, A. R.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dawes, James Arthur
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dean, Commander P. T.
Holmes, J. Stanley


Barrand, A. R.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Edge, Captain William
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H. Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Irving, Dan


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Evans, Ernest
Jesson, C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Britton, G. B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gange, E. Stanley
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Bromfield, William
Gardiner, James
Kenyon, Barnet


Brown, Major D. C.
Gee, Captain Robert
Kidd, James


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kiley, James Daniel


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)


Cairns, John
Gillis, William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Cape, Thomas
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Gould, James C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Lorden, John William


Casey, T. W.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lunn, William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gregory, Holman
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Greig, Colonel James William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maddocks, Henry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.
Magnus, Sir Philip




Mallalieu, Frederick William
Remnant, Sir James
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Rendall, Athelstan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Mason, Robert
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Mills, John Edmund
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Tootill, Robert


Mitchell, William Lane
Rodger, A. K.
Waddington, R.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Royce, William Stapleton.
Wallace, J.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Royds, Lieutenant-Colonel Edmund
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Waterson, A. E.


Myers, Thomas
Seddon, J. A.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Nall, Major Joseph
Sexton, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Neal, Arthur
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wignall, James


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


O'Grady, James
Spencer, George A.
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Pearce, Sir William
Spoor, B. G.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wintringham, Thomas


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Starkey, Captain John Ralph
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Stewart, Gershom
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Purchase, H. G.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Swan, J. E.



Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Taylor, J.
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.Clough.

Original Question, as amended, again proposed.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose at this late hour to move my Amendment on the Paper—to reduce the Vote by £55,000—but I intend to vote against the whole proposal. That will be, as hon. Members know, voting against any travelling expenses. The arguments have already been used, and I do not propose to say anything further.

Sir G. COLLINS: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Committee that there must be an interruption of business at 8.15.

8.0 P.M.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Amendment to reduce the Vote by £45,000 has been defeated, but there is an alternative course which the Committee could adopt, if it see fit, in its wisdom, and that is to support the recommendation of the Select Committee to grant first class railway tickets between London and the constituencies, in contrast to the proposals

of the Government to give first class tickets between London and the constituencies and the homes as well. I beg to move a reduction—

Lord HUGH CECIL: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, that Item A (2) be reduced by £30,000.
The proposal to grant free tickets to the homes was considered and rejected by the Committee on the very grounds on which the Government urged the adoption of the first proposal this afternoon, and I would ask the House of Commons to grant first class railway tickets between London and the constituencies and to reject the Government proposals for tickets to the homes as well.

Amendment negatived.

Original Question, as amended, put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 197.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[8.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barrand, A. R.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Cairns, John


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Bethell, Sir John Henry
Cape, Thomas


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Casey, T. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Brassey, H. L. C.
Cautley, Henry Strother


Atkey, A. R.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briant, Frank
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Britton, G. B.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bromfield, William
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Irving, Dan
Rodger, A. K.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jameson, John Gordon
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jephcott, A. R.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jesson, C.
Seddon, J. A.


Dawes, James Arthur
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Dean, Commander P. T.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Edge, Captain William
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kiley, James Daniel
Spencer, George A.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Spoor, B. G.


Evans, Ernest
Lawson, John James
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Galbraith, Samuel
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Stewart, Gershom


Gee, Captain Robert
Lunn, William
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Swan, J. E.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Taylor, J.


Gillis, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Glanville, Harold James
Magnus, Sir Philip
Tootill, Robert


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Townley, Maximilian G.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mason, Robert
Wallace, J.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Mills, John Edmund
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Mitchell, William Lane
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Gregory, Holman
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Waterson, A. E.


Greig, Colonel James William
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Guest, Major Hon. O. (Leicester)
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Hallwood, Augustine
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Hallas, Eldred
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hartshorn, Vernon
O'Grady, James
Wintringham, Thomas


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hirst, G. H.
Parker, James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pratt, John William
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.



Holmes, J. Stanley
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Leng Sturrock.


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)



Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cope, Major William
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Barnston, Major Harry
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hood, Joseph


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Houston, Robert Patterson


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hurd, Percy A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Forestier-Walker, L.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Forrest, Walter
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Butcher, Sir John George
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Campbell, J. D. G.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Gange, E. Stanley
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Gardiner, James
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Goff, Sir R. Park
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gould, James C.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Clough, Robert
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Greer, Harry
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel John
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lindsay, William Arthur


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)




Lorden, John William
Perring, William George
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Purchase, H. G.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rae, H. Norman
Waddington, R.


Maddocks, Henry
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Ramsden, G. T.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Raper, A. Baldwin
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Martin, A. E.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Middlebrook, Sir William
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claue


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Morrison, Hugh
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Winterton, Earl


Mosley, Oswald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Frederick


Murray, Hon. Gldeon (St. Rollox)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Nall, Major Joseph
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Seager, Sir William
Worsfold, T. Cato


Nield, Sir Herbert
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Pearce, Sir William
Starkey, Captain John Ralph
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.



Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Perkins, Walter Frank
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY OPERATIONS, IRELAND.

Major-General SEELY: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of His Majesty's Government to issue orders prohibiting the destruction of houses or buildings in Ireland except where necessary on purely military grounds, and the urgent necessity for putting a stop to such actions as the burning of Tincurry House, County Tipperary, on 15th May, The issue which I put to the House to-night is quite clear and definite, and has not been discussed by the House before. As will be seen, we raise here no question of the conduct of troops. There is no allegation here that the Regular troops, Auxiliaries or police have acted with lack of discipline. On the contrary, as will be seen from the concrete case which I shall put before the House, the troops throughout acted strictly in accordance with orders, and if I may use the phrase of so lamentable an occurrence, in an entirely proper manner. We raise two issues to-night. I can conceive that when the case is put, the great majority will support the view we express. We say, first, that His Majesty's
Government have failed to issue orders in accordance with the general principles laid down by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in various answers to questions and various speeches in this House, namely, that there shall be no destruction of the homes of the people except on purely military grounds—that is to say, either when a house is used as cover for an ambush, or when the residents of the house may reasonably be supposed to be participators in the outrages which we so much deplore. Although that is the policy of my right hon. Friend, he does not see his way to issue definite orders to that effect, and one can gather from certain answers he has given that the view taken is that this must be left to the military authorities in a martial law area. That is the first point we definitely challenge. On a matter of high policy—there can be no higher policy than this—the Chief Secretary must be supreme, and so long as this House supports him his will in matters of high policy like this must be law.
The second point we challenge is the actual method adopted, namely, the destruction of people's homes, presumably by way of reprisal, but in the absence of the incriminating reasons to which I have referred. As to the responsibility of the Chief Secretary to this House and his bounden duty to see that his policy and not the policy of anyone else is carried out, everyone here who cares for our method of constitutional government will
be disposed to agree that the last word must rest with the Chief Secretary responsible to this House. He cannot shelter himself, and I trust he will not shelter himself, behind the supposed necessity of listening to the advice of anyone, whether soldier, policeman, or civilian in Ireland, who wishes to pursue a different policy. The second point is that we challenge the policy of the burning of people's homes except for purely military necessities. The phrase I have used is, I think, a fair transcript of the policy of my right hon. Friend, as I understand it. It means that homes are to be destroyed only where a house is used as cover for an ambush or where the residents may reasonably be supposed to be parties to an outrage. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), who, I under-stand, will second this Motion, holds the view that instead of "or" we should say "and" in the Motion. It will no doubt be urged that constantly the houses of loyalists will be destroyed because they will be deliberately used by our enemies as fortresses from which to fire, with a view to the houses being burnt down. My hon. and gallant Friend will develop that case. I will come to the concrete case on which I rest this Motion.
There is resident in Derbyshire a man whom I know very well and whom everyone knows, a Dr. Tobin, who has been a magistrate for about 20 years, who is universally respected, and who, for more years than I care to count, has been the foremost medical man in the central part of Derbyshire. I say all this to show that such a man may be reasonably supposed, and certainly supposed, to tell one nothing but the truth. I will read to the House his account of what took place, and as will be seen it is only one of many similar occurrences on the same day. I know the House will be shocked. This Dr. Tobin is the brother of a man who lived in Tincurry House. His brother is now dead and there remain the widow and a young daughter of 13 years. There were two nephews living there before the War. They both joined up as loyal subjects soon after the outbreak of war. One, a lieutenant in the Royal Flying Corps, was shot down in an aerial combat at Ypres; the other, an officer in the Royal Navy, was drowned in the operations at Gallipoli, while serving with His Majesty's Ship "Triumph." There were in the
house at the time of the occurrence I shall describe, only Dr. Tobin's sister-in-law and her little daughter. Two other children were at school. This is what happened. Dr. Tobin writes:
Our old house and home in Ireland was blown up by the military on Saturday last, the 14th May, 1921—Tincurry House, Cahir, Co. Tipperary. It was an old country house, pre-Cromwellian, with additions and alterations from time to time. You can see it marked on any of the old ordnance maps. It was in occupation of my brother's widow and her youngest daughter, 13 years of age. My brother died about 3 years ago. My brother's two other children, 15 and 16½ years of age respectively, are away at school, one, a girl, in England, and the boy, 15 years of age, in Dublin. They, of course, go to the old home for school holidays only. No occupants of the house except the widow, Mrs. Marion Tobin, and her daughter, Eva, 13 years of age, and the servants.
The widow writes me that on Saturday last the military arrived and gave her an hour's notice to clear out her family, that the house was to be demolished. No furniture to be removed, only sufficient clothing, etc. No reasons given—nothing incriminating found, nor ever had been, though the house and plate had been searched and raided a dozen times or more night and day during the last 12 months or so. Before placing the bombs the house and all its rooms were thoroughly searched, and every article of furniture was smashed with picks and hatchets. The beds and bedroom furniture, as well as all the old mahogany chests, were all broken into matchwood. The new bathroom and bath and its basins, etc., were broken to bits. In fact, everything in the house upstairs and down was broken with picks and hatchets, so that nothing could possibly be saved or restored. Having thoroughly completed this wreckage, then the bombs were placed in the principal rooms and fired, and the dear old house and home blown to the four winds of heaven. Meanwhile, the widow and her little daughter, Eva Tobin, stood on the lawn as grim witnesses, carefully surrounded by the armed forces of the Crown.
Incidentally this was also the home of my two nephews, who were killed in France and Gallipoli during the Great War. It seems that on the same day, 14th May, 11 other houses were demolished in the same beautiful valley of the Galtees, but none of them was as old or as big as Tincurry House—not that such a comparison is of the least consequence. In fact, it only goes to show how cruelly impartial and haphazard military reprisals are in Ireland.
Then he proceeds to refer to the demeanour of the troops. He says they said it was a shame to treat the widow and the child in such a manner, and he goes on to say that when the deed was done the soldiers were exhausted for want of food and begged the widow to give them some, which she did. She and her
servants made tea for them in the kitchen, and gave them a good feed. The house of this poor lady and her little daughter was deprived of its furniture and its contents, these were smashed and it was then blown up. It cannot be alleged that this lady or her daughter were participants in any outrage. It would seem unlikely that the home of two officers who fell fighting for us in the Great War would be the home of participants in outrages. It could not be used for the purposes of an ambush on the roadside, because I understand it is not on the road. What reason can be given for this action I do not know, but whatever reason may be given, I ask this House to say that such proceedings as these are wrong.
On the general question of these formal reprisals, I do ask the House to say that they wish to put an end definitely to this kind of thing. Whatever anybody else may say, this House should say: "This thing must stop," and for more than one reason. The first reason, and the lower reason, is that it is so idle and inexpedient. It is very obvious that those on what may be called the loyal side of this matter, offer an incomparably bigger target. From the lower point of view it is foolish to take such steps as this, because brutal crimes have been committed, when the other side can burn down houses which are of so much more value—except, of course, from the sentimental point of view, to those immediately concerned. It is foolish for another and more important reason. Everybody must have been shocked this morning—and as one occupying an official position in Hampshire and having a close association with Hampshire, I was particularly shocked—at the news of the frightful crime by which the Hampshire Regiment, marching peace-fully along the road with its band, was blown up, and unfortunate bandsmen, some of them only little boys, blown to bits and many wounded. These are dreadful crimes which we reprobate, and to stop which we will help in every possible way. But are these crimes not made easier, instead of more difficult, by this kind of thing? In the first place, you must set more and more of the in-habitants against you by such procedure. The people, in what is here called the beautiful valley of the Galtees—and it
is a most beautiful valley—may not have been all of one political view, but the great majority must have been on our side in reprobating murder. One can well imagine the bitterness of seeing one's home destroyed, and by doing such acts you turn many of these people from being supporters of law and order, whatever their political views may be, towards the other side. Furthermore, and this is a view that will be shared in by many experienced soldiers, while troops are engaged on acts of this kind, they are necessarily withdrawn from their real duty, which should be to try to track down the assassin by every means known to the skilful and resourceful soldier. There is another aspect of this. Who is it orders these reprisals?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Not this House, anyway.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Who ordered the torture of the prisoners the other day?

Major-General SEELY: I should be glad if hon. Members would stick to this one point of who orders such reprisals as this. Other questions are contentious. I have taken the opposite side to many of my hon. Friends on the question of the behaviour of the troops, but this particular question I believe is one on which Members of the House on both sides will be of one mind. I repeat the question: Who orders these reprisals? There are two authorities and I know they do not pursue identical policies. I know in matters of this kind one favours one way and the other favours another. One commands the troops and the other commands the police. There is no proper co-ordination between them. Unless my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary boldly says what is the policy to be carried out, he shall merely be regarded as the servant of both of these in carrying out this detestable policy at the behest of one of them or some other policy at the behest of the other. We want this question of authority made defintely plain if we are to avoid disastrous effects. We want one supreme civilian head, responsible to this House, and under him we want a man who will loyally obey his orders and who will be himself supreme over others. We want to know by whom different policies are authorised in the same area with these deplorable consequences. It may be said
by somebody that while the destruction of property is very sad, it is nothing compared with the destruction of life. That is not quite true. It is a strange thing, but it is true that there are many people who love their homes even better than their lives, and when you seek to destroy people's homes you cut deep down into vital things in human thought with consequences more far-reaching than you can deal with. I can prove this to the House from my own experience. This same policy was adopted for a brief period during the South African War. I happened to be there at the time when the farm-burning policy began. It lasted a very short time, for the almost unanimous opinion of all thoughtful soldiers, and certainly of the soldiers at the front condemned it, and it was abandoned.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: And the present Prime Minister helped to kill it.

Major-General SEELY: While it was going on, I happened to be there and with many others of the officers and men protested against it. We were more anxious than anybody to defeat our enemies if only for the sordid reason of getting home. But when in the course of an attack on a commando we burned down a house, and it was supposed that we were burning down the house of the man we were attacking, he, as a matter of fact, was very likely some determined free-booter from Cape Colony and probably nobody laughed more then he did when he saw the house go up to the sky, well knowing that probably it belonged to a sympathiser with our cause. The same thing is happening in Ireland. Do you suppose these brutal assassins who blew up the Hampshire Regiment cared one scrap for the burning of Tincurry House, the residence of these two officers who were killed on our side in the War? No; but I am quite sure they will go to Mrs. Tobin. I have no doubt they have gone to her and said to her, "You see what comes of being on the English side. You allowed your men protectors to go off to the War. You are proud that one should be an officer in the British Navy and the other an officer in the British Flying Corps, and they both get killed in fighting for their cause. What do you get for it? They come and burn your house down and blow your 400-years-old house to smithereens." It is a foolish policy. The
soldiers in South Africa protested against such a policy, but when that war was over, and when the task of reconciliation began, when all those who had been most bitter against each other were trying to come to an agreement, when great men like General Botha and Lord Milner were trying to repair the ravages of the war and bring back the South African Dutch to friendship with us, and to form, as we ultimately did, a South African Union under the British flag, what was the principal difficulty? General Botha told me himself, in the presence of my Liberal colleague of that day—and I have no doubt he must have told Conservative ex-Cabinet Ministers; in fact, I know he did—he said to me, "My chief difficulty in bringing about reconciliation, the difficulty that met me at every turn, the difficulty that at all stages and even at the very last nearly wrecked the scheme, was the bitterness of the men whose houses had been burned."
Is not that a lesson for us here? Ought we not now at once to say from this House that this foolish and wrong policy of destroying people's homes that they love for any reason short of the direst necessity shall be put a stop to? We hear a great deal of the hostility even now to an approach to better things in Ireland. I know there are forces at work, unexpected forces, which may bring about a reconciliation between what are after all two very brave and determined nations. Surely the first and the best step we can take, if there be any chance of reconciliation, is to say now, as from this House of Commons, and with the support of my right hon. Friend, "We will take charge of this; whatever else may be done, whatever it may be necessary to do, to track down assassins and prevent brutal murders and outrages which we all deplore, we will respect the homes of the Irish people and thus give an earnest of our intentions, that one day we may be reconciled with Ireland."

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I beg to second the Motion. I think everyone who has the interests of Ireland at heart must be grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having brought this matter forward in the very temperate speech to which we have just listened, and if as a result of this Debate he can get some improvement in the military administration and greater wisdom in the
action that the military authorities are now taking, I think he will be able to congratulate himself on having done work of enormous benefit to both countries. My hon. Friends and I have long urged that the suicidal contest of authority in Ireland between the civil and military powers should come to an end, and I listened to no part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with greater pleasure than to the words which he said on that matter and in favour of the whole of the responsibility for operations against the rebels in Ireland being put under one military guidance, but I am not going to elaborate that question now, because our views are very well known already. I want rather to deal with the smaller question of the burnings which have been taking place all over Ireland, and for which both sides are responsible. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that burnings might be right during military operations and where the owner or the occupant of the house might be reasonably suspected of being in sympathy with Sinn Fein—I am not quite sure of his exact words.

Major-General SEELY: Participators in outrages.

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: While there is no doubt that if a house is being occupied by people ambushing the troops of the Crown, the troops must be allowed to destroy that house if necessary during the action, I do not agree with the view that once the action is over the troops should be allowed to destroy even a house from which they have been fired at. If the action is finished there is no reason to have recourse to these violent methods. If there is just suspicion against the owner or occupier of the house, why not bring him before a court-martial and deal with him after hearing his case? If you do not discourage the troops from burning down houses after an action is over, you play into the hands of the Sinn Fein habit of selecting loyalist houses, the houses of men whom they are fighting, taking them aside and threatening them with violence if they make the slightest attempt to communicate with the Crown forces, knowing that by choosing such a house they are going a good way to work to get it destroyed by the friends of those who own it. I cannot give chapter and verse for that kind of case, but I can
say that I have been told by officers in the Auxiliary Division that that is what happens, and they themselves, though they admit that in some cases it is necessary to destroy a house during the fighting, do not agree with the policy of burning a house down afterwards as a lesson to the population.
Now I come to the other case, where the right hon. Gentleman had, I think, the whole House with him, and that is where the house is burned down on the orders of the competent military authority in vengeance for some outrage upon the Crown forces. I think that is not only unjust, but most ineffective. It is absolutely repugnant, to anyone who is familiar with the conditions of British justice, that anyone should be punished unheard. The burning of property in this way is a very serious penalty, and, however anxious those who advise the competent military authority may be to select the right houses, it is inevitable that there must be mistakes. There is so much terrorism in Ireland to-day that I defy anybody to know which way the man who does not take an active part in politics on one side or the other really sympathises with. He dare not express his opinions, and how are the police, or whoever advise the competent military authority as to which houses are suitable to be burned down, to gauge the criminality of the owner? Of course, the military authorities probably take the line that this is a sound military method. I do not believe it is. As any soldier knew in the last War, it needs no military knowledge to inflict damage on the enemy if you do not care about the cost. A soldier must count the cost of his operation, and this particular government in Ireland is costing far more to your friends than it is to your enemies, and for that reason it seems to me absolutely suicidal. I do not think I can do better than read a letter which I got from a very well-known loyalist in the County of Cork:
Can you do nothing to get the authorised military reprisals stopped? They are doing no good, and an infinity of harm; e.g., last Saturday night 'Convamore,' Lord Listowel's house; 'Ballywalter,' Mr. Penrose Welsted's, and 'Rockmills,' Mr. C. D. Oliver's, all within a few miles of Castletownroche, in the Fermoy Military District, were burnt, I understand, as a counter-reprisal to the burning by the military of Sinn Fein houses in the neighbourhood. The Sinn Feiners have said so. The soldiers burn a cottage worth, perhaps, £300, and the Sinn
Feiners retaliate by burning a house worth £50,000. I do not think £100,000 would pay for 'Convamore' and its contents. If the military reprisals go on, there will soon be no loyalists' house left.
The authorities do not appear to understand the state of the country even now. Soldiers expect country people to help them to bring criminals to justice. Under present conditions, this is too stupid. Everyone is terrorised. The Government can protect no one. If a man is even suspected of having given any information to the police, he is shot by the Sinn Feiners and labelled 'spy.'
He adds as a postscript:
I see that Listowel has applied for £150,000 compensation, and that a military proclamation has been posted about Fermoy that if the burning of loyalists' houses is repeated, more than two Sinn Feiners' houses for each will be destroyed.
What is the good of destroying two houses, worth £300 apiece, which perhaps belong to a loyalist landlord, as vengeance for burning down a house worth £100,000? My friend adds:
This will be regarded as mere bluff, which it is, and do more harm than good.
I think it is mere bluff, because the other side in this matter hold the bigger cards. They can burn down houses which this House has to pay for, or else see the owner put to permanent loss, and the burning down of Sinn Feiners' houses really inflicts no proportionate penalty upon the other side. There is another case which happened last week. Mr. Ebenezer Pike, of Kilcrenagh, County Cork, was on Thursday midnight awakened by people knocking up the house, and men came in and said he could have a quarter of an hour to clear out and take anything he liked. He is an old man. He was living with his daughter, and was so bewildered that, even if he had had more time, I do not suppose he could have taken all the valuable things away with him. Anyhow he lost both his house and all the valuables which it contained. He asked them why they were burning his house, as he had taken no part one way or the other, and he was told his house was to be burnt down as a reprisal for houses burnt down by the troops. He was then locked in the stable with his daughter, and when let out his house was in ruins. The competent military authority can do nothing to prevent such cases. It is they who order these reprisals, and I submit it is absolutely monstrous to go on with this policy, unless you are prepared to secure that it does not
do more harm to your friends than it does to those against whom it is directed.
I say the competent military authority cannot protect loyalists' houses, judging by their extraordinary performance last week in Dublin. They were not able to protect even the Customs House. I believe the competent military authority only a short time ago removed the guard from the Customs House, and it has not yet been explained in this House what induced them to pursue that fatuous policy. There had been a long controversy about that guard. They tried, I believe, to get the Auxiliaries to do it, but naturally the Auxiliaries are not a suitable kind of force to undertake work of that kind, and, finally, the military did find a small guard. They then proceeded to withdraw this guard altogether, with the result that the most important building, from the point of view of Government records, was burnt down in broad daylight. I agree it is a building which cannot be replaced. We have heard a lot about that, but we have not heard about the almost more valuable records and papers which perished in that building. If that happens in Dublin, where there are troops, and where there is a competent military authority on the spot, what must happen in the country districts to which I have referred? The competent military authority, who orders this kind of proceeding, perhaps bases his action on psychological grounds. If so, it shows a singular ignorance of Irish mentality.
This policy is driving the few friends this country had in Ireland into the arms of Sinn Fein. It is causing intense bitterness in the eyes of every man who has kept neutral, and it is causing disgust and fear among your friends. During the present nightmare everybody feels that whichever side he takes he has got an equal chance of having his house burnt down, but he knows that when this nightmare comes to an end, if he takes part against Sinn Fein, then when that party comes to govern the country, he is more likely to suffer. Therefore, it is only human nature if these unprotected men go over day by day and join the ranks of Sinn Fein. I say it is absolutely unfair to put this work upon your troops. My Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) was present when Auxiliary officers in Dublin in high command told us they detested this policy, that there was nothing their men
disliked more than to get orders from the competent military authority to burn, in cold blood, houses, and turn out their occupants. I have given the right hon. Gentleman the reasons—one on the high ground of principle, and the other on the lower ground of expediency—why this policy should be stopped, and I hope he will choose either or both of them. I believe the right hon. Gentleman cannot know really what is going on.

Mr. MOSLEY: Oh, yes he does!

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I believe these orders must come on the decision of soldiers, who are guided only by the military expediency of the moment, and are thinking only in terms of force. They seem to forget that the country has got to be lived in after the Government has pacified it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to bring this policy to an end, and while punishing murder to cease to inflict these penalties which, apart from causing senseless loss to the community, are stirring up bitterness in Ireland which will not die out in our lifetime.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The speeches which have just been made are a remarkable testimony to the blundering and brutality of the Government's rule in Ireland. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), gives a very good instance of the crowning folly of the Government. Though I am deeply and bitterly opposed to the policy of His Majesty's Government, I do not wish to approach this subject to-night in a violent or controversial spirit. I rise merely for the few moments I desire to address the House to beg the House and the Government to reflect whether there is any good to be obtained by the pursuance of a policy which has been pursued for the last two years. Take this question of burnings. What good really does the right hon. Gentleman think he is doing by burning the houses of people who, for all he knows, are perfectly innocent? Does he really think he is discouraging the rebels? Does he think he is detaching one single rebel from the Irish Republican Army? Does he think he is cowing the Irish people into submission? Is he not rather encouraging the rebels? Is he not rather adding to their ranks, and increasing the disgust and terror with which his rule is regarded in Ireland? As my hon. and
gallant Friend opposite has said, the people in Ireland are not under the slightest delusion on this head. I was talking only the other day with a distinguished soldier who lives in Ireland, and he told me that for every cabin the right hon. Gentleman burns down the rebels burn down either a country house, or a mansion, or a castle. The only result of the right hon. Gentleman's competition in arson is that he gets scored off in the end. After all, the burning down of the Dublin Customs House is only the logical outcome of his own competition. May I in all humility ask the House, and the Government, to take stock of where we are, and what we have achieved by our policy? We have got an army in Ireland of over 60,000 men, costing anything from £1,250,000 to £1,500,000. We have a body of police which, I believe, are costing £7,000,000. Property has been destroyed, I believe, to the amount of £5,000,000. You have lives lost to the number of 700 since 1st January. What have you got to show for it all? The right hon. Gentleman himself has confessed that the thing is a failure. The Prime Minister has also confessed that the right hon. Gentleman is a failure. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that a commanding officer, when he is a failure, has to be removed to some other sphere of activity, and somebody else is put in his place. I submit it is high time that that which is a sound rule in military matters should be applied to the office of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has announced that he is going to increase the number of soldiers in Ireland. What good is it going to do to increase the number of soldiers? What good has the army of 60,000 done? What has it done for peace?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord forgets that in the Motion for the Adjournment of the House we are confined to the definite, urgent, and particular matter raised in it. The Debate was opened by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division (Major-General Seely), but the Noble Lord must not review the whole field of Irish affairs; he must keep to the question—that of the burnings as set forth in the Motion.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am sorry I have strayed from the point. What I desire to say is that you are never going to get peace in Ireland by pursuing a policy of arson. The only way to get
peace in Ireland is to do as in this country—to get the goodwill of the people. You will never get the goodwill of the people except you rely upon those principles upon which, at all events before the War, we relied in this country: that is to maintain the majesty of the law, and to promote the happiness and contentment of the people. You will only get peace in Ireland if you rely on those principles which underlie our religion and our great and glorious Empire. You are only going to get peace in Ireland when you have faith in the goodness of humanity and the efficiency and virtues of the principle of self-government. You are only going to get peace in Ireland when you cease your burning down of Irish houses, cease from bullying and knocking the people about, treat the Irish people as human beings, and leave liberty and self-government to do the rest.
The tragic part of the whole of this deplorable situation in Ireland is that the Irish people are asking for nothing more than that which I believe the British people are prepared to give them. They ask for nothing more than we have given the South Africans, the Canadians, and the Australians—that is, to make them a free country and a free people in the British Empire. I agree with the remarkably interesting article written by a very well-known gentleman in the "Round Table" the other day, that the only solution of this problem is to give the Irish people fiscal autonomy. There are, of course, risks in that policy. There are risks in any policy. The risk of the policy you are pursuing is that you have more and more added to the disgrace and dishonour of this country, and to the confusion and anarchy in Ireland. I do beg the Government to pursue a policy which is consistent with the traditions of this great and glorious Empire, and by which we can turn the Irish people, if we like, from rebels into happy and contented members of the British community.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am sure the whole House was deeply impressed by the very excellent and moderate speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Major-General Seely). Above all they welcomed his speech because he very carefully kept it free from any extravagant utterances and any suspicion of party bias, which, Heaven knows, has been the ruin of Ire-
land. He put before us what I am sure everybody in their heart of hearts agrees with, namely, that we wish to treat our Irish fellow-subjects in the same way, if possible, as people are treated here in England. He also bore truthful witness to the most excellent discipline maintained by the British forces in Ireland. Our soldiers have carried on under tremendous provocation. They have seen their fellow-men shot down from behind hedges, and they have seen them mutilated, and yet with very few exceptions thy have maintained a discipline which has always been characteristic of a British Tommy in all parts of the world. I hope the Chief Secretary will realise that in criticising this aspect of his administration we are not criticising the individual soldier who carries out his orders, but we are criticising simply the fact that such orders are given to him.
Let us be fair to the Chief Secretary and let us put ourselves in his position. The right hon. Gentleman was called to his task at a time when British authority was practically non-existent in Ireland. He had to reconstruct the Royal Irish Constabulary and strongly reinforce the Army. He had to deal with county councils and borough councils who had defied the British Crown, and, indeed, he had in a sense to reconquer Ireland for the British Crown and the British nation. Let us recognise, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, the very grave difficulties which he has had to face, and also the large measure of success he has met with in his attempts to restore law and order. He has reconstituted the Royal Irish Constabulary, and there are few people who criticise that Constabulary now. Most of the county councils have agreed to acknowledge their authority, and outside the martial law area, generally speaking, in a very large measure law and order has been restored. Let us give credit where credit is due.
May I state why, in my humble opinion, the Chief Secretary and His Majesty's Government have not more largely succeeded in bringing about a better state of affairs in Ireland? It is because of this policy of reprisals with official sanction. I understand that outside the martial law area reprisals have been abandoned. What is the root trouble of these reprisals in the martial law area? It is that we have not a civilian responsible to this House to direct policy, but
that His Majesty's Government have deliberately handed over in the martial law area not only executive action, but policy, to soldiers. I do not wish to criticise a distinguished general, but he is trained to do a certain thing in order to win battles, destroy the enemy and the armed forces of his enemy. He has not to consider the consequences of those actions. It may be right to do these things in a foreign country, but it is all wrong to do them in our own country where the people have to live together. This policy of reprisals which is being permitted by the Government to be carried out by the competent military authority is, in my opinion, the reason why my right hon. Friend's policy has not been more successful, although I know he has worked very hard. As a humble Back Bench Member, may I urge the Government at once to take steps to bring their policy in the martial law area into line with their policy outside, which is that these official reprisals, except under the circumstances named by my right hon. Friend, shall cease at once and cease altogether.
With regard to Ireland, I have connections out there, and I do feel most deeply that we should do all we can to bring about reconciliation in Ireland, and these reprisals are an absolute bar to any idea of reconciliation. They are against all the laws taught us in the Bible; they are against the laws of God and all the laws we have held sacred in this country in the past; they are against all our constitutional practice which has made this country great and has made up our Empire. They have proved themselves to be actually ineffectual, and if a thing is ineffectual you had better scrap it. Last but not least, this policy has given our enemies in foreign countries occasion to say very unpleasant things about this country which certainly have a very sound substratum of truth. After all, this House claims, and always has claimed, to be the controlling authority in this country. I am sure anybody listening to the cheers of hon. Members when they hear these sound principles being laid down must realise that every-body here is unanimous that these things are wrong and must cease. If that is so, may I ask the Chief Secretary to at once see that the competent military authorities in martial law areas shall cease these official reprisals, and if any more
take place let him see that the military authorities in those areas shall at once be removed.

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that on this question I have very strong feelings, which are not shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not wish to travel outside the limits which have been set by the right hon. Gentleman in the persuasive speech with which he opened this Debate. May I state here that I regret I was led to use some disorderly expression a short time ago when we were discussing another aspect of this question. The only quarrel I have on this occasion is that the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) introduced matter which seemed to me to be somewhat extraneous to this Resolution. I do not know that my views upon the action of the Government in Ireland are of much interest to the House, but I have always been in favour of taking the strongest military action, because the situation is at such a pitch in Ireland that it can only be settled by force of arms. That is my private view. I have always taken the view, and it requires some boldness to put it forward, that certain issues in Ireland can only be decided by force of arms. I do not mean the whole issue as between the Irish people and this country. I am referring to the issue as between those who commit assassination and the armed forces of the Crown. Clearly an immense number of the people of this country agree that the Government have to take military action, but I cannot conceive anything more serious than to have to take military action against any portion of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
What is inconceivable to me with my knowledge of the state of affairs is that there should be so much apathy and indifference on the part of this House in the treatment of this question. We have neither the Leader of the House nor the Prime Minister here. It is inconceivable that the Front Bench should be occupied as it is at this moment. Every Member of the Government ought to be present. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to smile. I can assure him that nobody in Ireland smiles at the situation or at the action which the Government has taken there. All over Ireland it will be mentioned that, on the occasion of a
Debate in which there is a remarkable unanimity of opinion on a particular question, neither the Leader of the House nor the Prime Minister attended, and the only contribution made by the Home Secretary was a feeble smile. Those who hold the views I do will agree that if military action is taken it should be sharp, short, and effective. It is intolerable that you should continue to carry on a dragging guerilla warfare. If the right hon. Gentleman's Chief Secretaryship does not succeed he should give way and make room for someone else, and so, too, should Sir Nevil Macready. How long has this guerilla warfare been going on, and how many more years will it continue before it is brought to an end? So much for the general aspect of the policy.
On the particular question of the burnings I repeat that anyone holding the views I do will demand that military action shall be sharp and effective. Can the right hon. Gentleman maintain for one moment that the burning of Condamore, the property of a family whose loyalty nobody questions, is going to have the slightest effect in stopping assassination? Of course, it will not. I cannot conceive why such action has been taken at all, except on the ground that the military policy of the Government in the South of Ireland has largely failed up to the present. It has failed because we have not sufficiently good leaders. Look at the kind of gentlemen who are supposed to be competent military authorities in the South of Ireland. Some of them would certainly never have commanded a brigade in the War. Some who did so were sent home. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should select for the difficult and delicate task which the troops in Ireland have to undertake the very best men available. There are men like the gallant and distinguished officer in command of the Archangel Expedition. There are men who in the War did difficult and delicate work, quite as difficult and as delicate as anything requiring to be done in Ireland, who might have been chosen. It was absurd to choose such men as have been selected for the work. I know what the usual line of defence of the right hon. Gentleman is, but I want to see our gallant soldiers led by competent leaders and not by men who would be better if sent back
to their comrades at the War Office. You want for this kind of work the very best men possible, and I am sure if you had such men in charge they would not for one moment be in favour of the policy which is being pursued, or, at any rate, they would not carry it out without making strong recommendations to the contrary.
I want to put three questions to the Government. In the first place who gives the orders for individual reprisal burnings? Who, for instance, gave it in the case of the house to which reference has been made this evening? Was it General Strickland? Was it a brigade commander? Was it the colonel in charge of the battalion? Or who was it? It is not necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to mention the actual name of the officer, but we want to know what is the rank of the officer who is responsible for giving the orders.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And to what branch of the Service he belongs.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that that is important. We know the policy is carried out by the military. I have always refrained from asking questions which, I think, might be mischievous, but I feel it is desirable, in view of what is gong on in the South of Ireland, that we should know exactly under what law or regulation these burnings are carried out. Are they carried out under martial law, or are they carried out under civil law? Is there any process by which the person who owns the property—it is only by the mercy of the Almighty that I own none in the South of Ireland—can protect himself or by which he can claim compensation if he thinks his horse has been improperly burned? Is there any channel through which he can make an appeal? Even in the case of an enemy country, say in the occupied districts of Germany, persons thinking themselves aggrieved by any action of the Allied troops have the fullest opportunity for appeal to some tribunal. Finally, I would like to know, is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to review in any way these burnings after they have been carried out and to consider the effect of them and the reason for them? A most serious charge was made by the last speaker. He said, and it was news to me,
that the Chief Secretary has no control or power over what is done by the constituted military authorities. If that is so, I say frankly it alters my view of the whole subject. I am inclined to think that a larger portion of Ireland may have to be brought under martial law than is at present the case, and if the military authorities are to be made entirely responsible there ought to be some channel by which the Government in this country can be made fully aware of all the circumstances under which reprisals are carried out. That is to say, where there is a case—and I think the House will assent to this—in which there is a question whether there was any reason why a burning should have taken place as, for example, the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate—the Chief Secretary should have the fullest opportunity at the earliest possible moment of deciding whether the action of the Crown forces in Ireland was justified or not. Seeing that that is not so, he is placed in a very unfortunate position. At Question Time to-day he was subjected by hon. Gentlemen opposite to an attack upon him personally for his administration in Ireland. Quite obviously, if he is not responsible for that administration, it is unfair to attack him, but somebody must be responsible. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question, and will give us an assurance that in the last resort and quickly, he is responsible, and is in full possession of the facts. I am bound to confess that, if he is fully responsible I think it will require very great parliamentary dexterity on his part, which I know he possesses, to make out a good case for such burnings as those mentioned in the course of this Debate, and for the continuation of those burnings, whether on a smaller or a larger scale, in the South of Ireland.

Mr. MOSLEY: I fear that the Noble Lord was rather more than half way on the road to Damascus before he saw the great light. Things being as they are, however, may I hope that in the near future those of us who have wandered forth into the desert on this subject may have the opportunity of offering him a respectful welcome. A pang of regret inspired me to-night in listening to some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite. I wish we could have commanded such support in October last, when we ven
tured to protest against the sacking of Balbriggan when a whole community was destroyed by the agents of the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of the night, without even the warning that is extended under the system of official reprisals; against a reprisal that resulted in two women in child-birth and four little children suffering from measles perishing in the cold of the fields. I wish that, on that occasion, when we ventured to protest against a policy which far transcends anything mentioned in this Motion, we could have commanded the support of hon. Members. I quite realise, however, that it is inexpedient on this occasion that I should wander into the wider issues raised by such considerations. The right hon. Gentleman will certainly answer one day at the bar of history for these proceedings. I trust he may one day answer before a tribunal of his fellow-countrymen, but I have no wish to raise any controversy beyond the Motion advanced by my right hon. Friend this evening.
Unofficial reprisals, privately inspired and subsequently condoned, we are told, are at an end. To-day we find ourselves in the era of official reprisals. They began, as far as I understand, on the 27th April last, when, in Listowel, a proclamation was posted by the military stating that in future reprisals for any outbreak against the lives and property of officials would be taken against the property of selected persons without proof of their implication in the outrage. That, I understand, is in direct contravention of the right hon. Gentleman's previous assurances in this House that, in all cases of official reprisals where houses were burned down, there should be at least very good grounds of suspicion that the inhabitants of those houses were actually implicated in the outrages which instituted the reprisals. We now find the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly moulding his policy on the Prussian model. This policy is copied and taken en bloc from the doctrines of the German military writers which were closely pursued by that nation throughout the War. It is the old, well-known system, outlined in the doctrines of Clauswitz and others, of collective punishment. The principle is that if an outrage is committed in the neighbourhood where the troops of a hostile country are billeted, and the inhabitants of that
neighbourhood support and sympathise with the assassins, and consequently information cannot be obtained, an indiscriminate vengeance should be wreaked on the locality and that the sins of the guilty should fall on the innocent in the hope that a blind shot would catch the guilty party and thus discourage potential assassins in the future.
In Belgium, during the War, that system worked. I am dealing with it purely pragmatically; it is no use to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on any other ground. That system worked in Germany because the Germans were efficient. The right hon. Gentleman is not efficient. If it did not carry such a ghastly tragedy in its wake his administration in Ireland would be the joke of history. The Prussians in Belgium were able to prevent the people travelling from one village to another. The people were segregated, the men were forced to remain in the villages in which they were born, and under the military system of Germany they could not wander about the country. Consequently, if a village were sacked when outrages took place against the Germans, and the outrages had been committed by a Belgian, then that Belgian knew that his own native community would be destroyed, and that probably his own mother, sisters, wife or children would have their house burned over their heads. Consequently he was deterred from committing what were crimes in the eyes of the Germans. Those conditions do not prevail at all in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely incompetent to prevent Irish assassins travelling from one end of the country to another. They do it at will, as he has assured us over and over again in this House. They are not living in the villages, but on the bogs and in the hills, on the run, and his administration can never get them.
Therefore, what conceivable object is there in this inefficient reproduction of Prussianism? The only effect it can have is once more to give Sinn Fein the propaganda that it needs in America. The news of these acts are cabled to the United States and more money pours into the coffers of Sinn Fein. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion that, so far from being deterred by these outrages, the active, militant band of Sinn Fein are delighted
when they see the houses of innocent people burned down. The right hon. Gentleman is merely visiting the spleen of his inefficiency, because he cannot catch the guilty, upon the heads of the innocent. That is the system which the right hon. Gentleman is constituting in Ireland. It is not even an efficient Prussianism. That is the system which has to-day evoked against this country a howl of indignation all over the world, our own Colonies included—a howl of indignation which eclipses the indignation felt against the Germans in regard to their action in Belgium. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted a task which has defeated infinitely greater men than himself. Napoleon attempted a system not nearly so onerous as the right hon. Gentleman's in Ireland, not nearly so repressive, but the same kind of thing—visiting the sins of the guilty upon the innocent, collective punishment, militarist repression. He tried that in Germany and in Spain, and the national sentiment which he conjured up in those countries was responsible for his downfall in 1814. It broke Napoleon, and it has broken already the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The same system was employed by the Austrians in Italy, and it was entirely responsible for the creation of Italian nationality. Indeed, the only way of creating nationality, in these days of economic internationalism, is by political repression of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman is perpetuating that disastrous, exaggerated, egotistical nationalism in Ireland which is responsible for all our difficulties there to-day. He cannot claim that his administration has been a success. He cannot claim at the best that it is anything but a feeble imitation of his Prussian model. He cannot claim that he has not brought upon the name of this country abroad an execration which will live throughout this generation. He cannot even have the courage to submit the whole question to an impartial tribunal of his fellow-countrymen.

Mr. CLYNES: All of the speeches to which the House has listened in this short Debate have been very brief, and in that I propose to imitate them, but I cannot hope to imitate them in their fervour and in the qualities of eloquent appeal which have distinguished them among most of the speeches that we have heard for a very long time on Irish questions. I cannot
hope, either, that we shall have any proof to-night that the Chief Secretary will have learned anything from the lessons of history. Indeed, had this country been capable of learning anything from the lessons of history in relation to Irish government, we should not now be debating this aspect of the Irish Question which my right hon. Friend has brought before us. I rise mainly to suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should keep faith in his answer to-night with the definite assurance, which he has often repeated, with regard to the discharge of his duties. He has assured the House that he would continue to discharge his duty, as he saw that duty, so long as he should have the support of the House of Commons. There have been some half-dozen speeches since this Debate began, and each one of them has been an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at least to depart from or reverse one part of his settled military policy in the martial law area. Not a single hon. Member has said a word in support of that policy. On the contrary, every hon. Member who has so far addressed the House has reflected what I am certain is the view of every man who hears this case stated. We put to the right hon. Gentleman the view that this line of trying to govern Ireland is not supported by the House of Commons, and is not in keeping with the collective will of the Members of this House of all parties. It is clear that no one, unless it be, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman himself, will rise in defence of what is now being done.
If we cannot say anything whatever for a particular line of military action or civil government in Ireland, we ought, at least, to be able to claim for it that it has the support of the majority of this House. Apparently, this particular part or feature of Irish policy has no support here whatever, and I claim that on that ground the Chief Secretary is no longer entitled to continue this method of governing Ireland in the martial law area. There is, perhaps, a stronger reason why it should be discontinued. I can only reinforce the reason which has been so eloquently expressed by the two or three hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. It is futile and wicked to inflict such severe physical privation and loss upon innocent people. You could, perhaps, justify the wickedness and wrong on the ground that the
end justifies the means, if it could be shown that this plan had been a success. It has not, and, for my part, I hope it will not. But I cannot conceive of any line upon which conduct of this kind on the part of a civilised Government can be excused or defended. Some of us who have expressed ourselves strongly on some features of Irish government have been reproached on occasion with the statement that what we say is an encouragement to the commission of crime and to wrongdoing in Ireland. On the contrary, I believe that the continuance of the methods to which we are now objecting is the most express and assured encouragement that could be given to those who find the justification for their acts in the very act of the Government itself.
Nothing will please the extremists, the rebels, the physical force element in Ireland more than to know that this particular line of Irish policy is to be continued by the British Government. That will strengthen any act of rebellion or reprisal that they may be disposed to take. It is, therefore, not only wrong and unjust to the innocent sufferers, but it strengthens the hands of the rebels who, on the other hand, are being pursued by the right hon. Gentleman with a view to their destruction. I have only risen to associate myself and those for whom I can speak with the expressions of opinion which have been couched in such terms of melancholy with regard to the outlook in Ireland. We are possessed by a feeling of the greatest dejection and bewilderment as to where we are being led. I can recall when, 12 months ago, the right hon. Gentleman joyously expected that after a few months, by a show of military strength or increased police forces, he would be able to claim a success for his policy. He has recently confessed that it is a failure—at least that it is a failure up to a point of time within which he concluded that he would meet with success. Whatever he thinks he may have in store for the broad lines of his policy, he surely cannot hope for any elements of success whatever from the particular line against which this Motion is directed. I ask his attention to the fact that this line of policy is unanimously reprobated and condemned by Members of this House attached to all parties, and, in keeping with his own declarations in his previous speeches, his announcement to the House ought to be that of a depar-
ture from a policy which has been ruinous so far as it has been tried.

Mr. LANE-MITCHELL: I have a feeling that it is imprudent for a new Member who has never before spoken on the Irish Question to intervene in a discussion of this kind, because we have been accustomed so often to hear the same men repeat the same speech that we do not take it seriously. We send a soldier over to Ireland to do our job. I want to know how we are supporting him in doing it. If I had charge of a job of this kind I should select the best man I could get and give him all the force he wanted to do it, and give him all the backing he wanted, and if he did not do it I would clear him out and get someone else. I want the job done. What do I mean by the job? It is not the kind of Parliament Ireland is going to get. It is not a question of self-government. That is not what is before you now. What is before you is that ever since this Parliament came into being you have had rebellion in Ireland, and you have been tinkering with it from one time to another, and every time any force has been sent to put it down you start to weaken the hand that is doing it and do all you can to stop it being brought about.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: We want troops to put down murder.

Mr. LANE-MITCHELL: You have all criticised the Government.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The Noble Lord has already spoken. Now we are getting another view.

Mr. LANE-MITCHELL: I am in absolute agreement with the Noble Lord that we have to get on with it and get it done somehow or another. It has been established in the discussion that in the military area the competent military authority is supreme, and he acts on his own authority, independent of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman (Major-General Seely) asked definitely whether a specific order was given for a reprisal by the Chief Secretary. I have gathered that the Chief Secretary never gives an order for reprisals. It comes from the com-
petent military authority, the man who was sent there to do the job, who in the exercise of his judgment does it in a particular way. Outside the military area the Chief Secretary has been ruthlessly putting down any attempt at reprisals. If that is the position what more do you want? The House has a right to say that until we get law and order restored in Ireland every man of right mind ought to support the military authority over there in getting the job done.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: In rising to address the House for the first time I should, perhaps, apologise for intervening in a Debate on so serious a question, but after the speech to which we have just listened I feel especially that some reply is needed and that perhaps a reply will come not unfittingly from someone who has just had to fight an election and has been elected as a supporter of the Government. In my election address I strongly supported the necessity of holding up the hands of the Government in enforcing the authority of the Crown in Ireland, and I am perfectly prepared to trust the man chosen by this House to enforce law and order in Ireland. But I also said in my election address that it was absolutely necessary to have unity of command. I do not understand how the right of this House to inquire into the facts, which we are now doing, can be put off by a kind of House-that-Jack-Built policy, that because the Chief Secretary has appointed some-one else who has appointed someone else to be responsible for a particular area, therefore we must not ask the Chief Secretary for an explanation or hold him responsible for what occurs in that area. If I may give my impression of what the actual feeling in this country is at present about the situation in Ireland, a very humble impression gathered only from a somewhat recent experience, I have always found very little support in the country for the extreme view of the moral obliquity of the Government. Still less have I found any support for the view of their moral obliquity and indiscipline of the soldiers of the Crown. The position of the Government in regard to this question would have been very much less strong than it is to-day if some of its opponents had not so constantly delivered these extreme attacks upon them.
What I did find was a strong feeling that the administrative system of restoring order in Ireland has been incoherent, and therefore weak. It is because 1, and I believe all those who sit near me, are anxious to strengthen the hands of the Government that we ask whether the present system of a divided command in Ireland, as manifested in these reprisals, these burnings of homes, is a system to which the Government can point as a coherent system adapted to the restoration of order, nay, I would put it even as implying a coherent system adapted to bring pressure upon those upon whom you wish to bring pressure. The whole point of repression must always be that it shall proceed with the greatest possible precision, and that therefore those at whom you strike shall know for what offence you have struck and why it is they who are struck and not someone else. If there be anything incoherent or hap-hazard or indiscriminate in the action of a repressive authority, it will not repress, and it is from that point of view that I have intervened to say that if the right hon. Gentleman can convince this House that the system of administration is so conducted, under such centralised control, under such a tight rein, that it can be directed to certain definite ends of repression, then I shall be prepared to support the Government. If, as I fear, it is a question of incoherence of administration, resulting in indiscriminateness of repression, then I think there is only one course before anyone who gave the election pledges which I gave, on the one hand to support the Government in suppressing disorder, and on the other hand to see that the administration for that purpose reaches the highest possible level of efficiency.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I congratulate the Noble Lord who has just spoken on his success at the poll, and on taking part in our Debate on a very vital issue such as that raised to-night. I appreciate very much what he has said, and in principle I am absolutely in agreement with him. I appreciate the temperate and effective speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Resolution (Major-General Seely). There is nothing in this Resolution, in substance, which I have not already acted upon, or could not accept. Before I deal with the Resolution, however, may I refer
to those hon. Gentlemen who spoke of officers, I think most unfairly. I must make a protest against calling the Competent Military Authority of Dublin an incompetent military authority, and against the suggestion that certain competent officers in the martial law area are not fit for their command. Those officers cannot answer except through me. If they are incompetent they must be removed; but to make an accusation of incompetence, without any proof whatever—

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman says that I made an accusation of incompetence without proof. If he can explain why the military guard was withdrawn from the Customs House after many representations and many negotiations had gone on I will gladly withdraw my expression.

Earl WINTERTON: If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to find out who is responsible for the situation by which a band was blown up in the South of Ireland, and no precaution taken to send an advance guard to look at the road beforehand, I will withdraw my accusation against the competent military authority in the South of Ireland.

10.0 P.M.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think these two questions are quite irrelevant to the Resolution, but I will deal with them The Customs House in Dublin had no special guard except the ordinary military and police patrol, for various reasons. In the first place the number of troops in Ireland is so short of requirements that it is impossible to provide guards for all public buildings. That is a military consideration. In the second place it was not considered credible that even the extremist Sinn Feiner would burn this great national possession, namely, the Customs House. They have burned it, and the loss will fall on Ireland and nowhere else. I do not consider in these circumstances that the competent military officer in Dublin can be accused of incompetence. I still say that it is a most unfair slur on an officer who can only speak through me. I am satisfied that he is one of the ablest officers in the British Army. Although there have been many brutal murders in Dublin, including the murder of 12 officers one morning, on November 21st last, so great was the control of that officer over the soldiers and the police under him that
there has never been a reprisal of any shape or kind.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Croke Park!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As to the question of the blowing up of the band and some soldiers of the gallant Hampshire Regiment at Youghal, I can assure the Noble Lord that if it is a test of the competency of the commander at Cork I have no doubt that every precaution was made to find out whether the way was clear for the advance of the battalion that was marching towards the rifle butts, and I do not think it is a sign of incompetency in a General Officer if a concealed mine is exploded by an electric wire, running from a battery 60 or 70 yards away from the road. I do not think that is a sign of an incompetent officer.

Earl WINTERTON: Was there an advanced guard?

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: They would not have found it if there had been.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no doubt that the regiment was marching according to rule in an area such as Youghal. I have no evidence to the contrary. With reference to the officers of the police and the military, I am responsible for them and their conduct, and I am sure the House will agree with me that if things are wrong I must take the blame, which I do cheerfully, and I am proud of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, and on balance the record of these men in Ireland will shine brightly in the history of this country. That brings me to a very important point of principle raised by the right hon. Gentleman, namely: "Is the Chief Secretary responsible for everything that goes on in Ireland?" He is. Let there be no doubt about that. I am responsible. In the normal way when a part of a country is under martial law the officer commanding is the sole authority and is responsible to the Secretary of State for War, but in this case I am responsible. Let there be no doubt about that. Therefore, if any military or other officer is incompetent it is my business to dismiss him, and if the House feels strongly that anyone is not competent and is not dismissed they must vent their displeasure on me. I think that is the
proper constitutional position. It adds to my difficulties, but it is essential that the Chief Secretary should speak for the whole of Ireland, of which he is the representative in this House.
On the point of unity of command in the martial law area there is absolute unity of command under the senior officer, General Sir Peter Strickland. He has absolute command over civilians, police, and military. There is no question about that. He can deal with them exactly as he likes, under the proclamation agreed to by the Commander-in-Chief and myself. Of course, all proclamations issued by the Commander-in-Chief are issued in agreement with myself. As to unity of command in the rest of the country that is only possible under martial law. The question of the extension of martial law is frequently before the Government. It may be necessary to extend the martial law area. It may not be necessary. We have had two Parliaments elected in Ireland since we last had an Irish Debate. That is an historical constitutional event. The authority given under the Government of Ireland Act will soon, I hope, pass to the two Parliaments in Ireland. The Ulster Parliament has been elected, and will be constituted in a very short time and will operate. It would be impossible to extend martial law to that area without the consent of that Parliament. I still hope that the Southern Parliament will meet and operate. At any rate, it is our business to give them the opportunity to do so. If they fail to take advantage of that opportunity and assume responsibility for the good government of Ireland, a new set of circumstances arise, and the Government must simply in these circumstances apply all the remedies in their possession. So when we are pressed for unity of command and drastic measures, while I appreciate the feelings of hon. and right hon. Members they must remember that we have the political remedy in Ireland and we must give that remedy an opportunity to operate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: There is nothing to prevent you stopping burning down houses.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked who gives the order for official reprisals in the martial law area.
The answer is no officer below the rank of Brigade Commander.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On whose advice?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He acts on the advice of those serving under him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the actual advice as to whose houses are to be burned given by the Intelligence Department? Is that a military department or a civil department?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He must get his advice where he can, and will only act On it when he is convinced that it is good. Every military area has its Intelligence staff, but who are the particular person or persons on whose advice the Brigade Commander will act it is impossible to say. The second question is—is there any review of the what are called official reprisals by the Commander-in-Chief and by myself? There is a review of them. They are treated as most serious and abnormal acts, and I must say here if there is any case where innocent persons have suffered by reason of the orders given by a Brigade Commander I certainly would consider that that was a case for compensation out of the Exchequer.

Captain W. BENN: For loss of life?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As far as you can compensate for that by money. That is the one irrevocable thing; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that life is not involved in what we are considering to-night. The report goes at once from the Brigade Commander to the Divisional Commander in Cork. From that commander it is sent on to General Head-quarters in Dublin, to the General Officer Commanding in Dublin, General Sir Nevil Macready. He and I are in daily contact when we are in Ireland together, and we are in constant contact when I am here and he is in Ireland.

Earl WINTERTON: Are these reprisals taken under martial law or under the ordinary law—the Restoration of Order Act?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will develop that as I go on. I am dealing with reprisals in the martial law area. The Resolution before the House is to move the adjournment to call attention to a, definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the military
authorities to issue orders prohibiting the destruction of houses and buildings by Crown forces in Ireland, except where necessary on purely military grounds. There is nothing in the substance of that which I do not accept. Orders have been issued to servants of the Crown and I shall read an Order which was issued to the police and agreed to by myself not recently but on 4th December last year:
There have been recently large numbers of reports of arson. While it is by no means clear that this is done by forces of the Crown I wish again to impress on all members of the police force the absolute necessity for stopping burnings, whatever the provocation. The only profitable burnings are the destruction of buildings which have been used to shelter ambushers or from which fire is opened on forces of the Crown. The burning of houses or buildings not directly connected with assassination or attempted assassination is indefensible. I appeal to the police of all ranks to repress all destruction of property in Ireland, even of notorious Sinn Feiners. The force will now fully recognise that the Government is giving them strong support, and I feel sure that they will not wish to embarrass the Government in their very difficult task. I can assure them that incendiarism tends to alienate sympathy of many right thinking and law abiding citizens of the Empire, and does harm to the cause of right for which we are fighting.

Colonel ASHLEY: Does that apply to the martial law area?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: To all Ireland.

Mr. LUNN: How far is that efficacious? Is it not the fact that Cork City was burned down six days after the issue of the Proclamation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is very easy when a country is in a state of rebellion to find exceptions to every rule. I am dealing with the question in the Resolution about the Government failing to issue Orders prohibiting the destruction of houses or buildings. This Order was issued to the police on 4th December last year for the whole of Ireland.

Major-General SEELY: In order that we may not proceed on different lines of thought, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to explain whether this Order of 4th December applies to the martial law area under General Strickland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will deal with that. This Order shows that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is in error when he says that the Government has not issued any Order. The Government has. I have said at this Box time and again, in reference to reprisals, that no
one has tried more strenuously than I have to put them down, and I think that I have succeeded in doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"]

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had no fewer than eight speeches in criticism of the Government, and it is only fair that the Government should be allowed to put its case without interruption.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I ask whether this Order did not deal merely with unofficial reprisals, as to which we all recognise the strong action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, while we are now dealing with official reprisals by order of the competent military authority.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to develop a continuous argument. They all seem to want to get their points in. He should have a chance.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Irish Secretary is accustomed to be shot at. I quite understand the keenness with which everybody is using this question, but I am developing it and I will cover all the points that have been raised. I have to repeat that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his first hypothesis, namely, that the Government has not dealt with this question by order. This was issued on 4th December of last year. Martial law was imposed upon four counties, I think, on 10th December of last year, and on four further counties in January of this year. In the non-martial law area, which comprises the greater part of Ireland, there have never been official reprisals. Reprisals have never been encouraged or condoned, but have always been condemned, and many people have been severely disciplined because of unofficial reprisals, although the provocation has been almost superhuman. In spite of that—I think I shall carry the whole House with me—reprisals are rare, unofficial reprisals are now rare. Indeed, so rare are they that we may say they never occur in Ireland. If they did occur there would be questions on the Paper every day.
In addition to the Orders, I have myself on more than one occasion summoned all the senior police officers to Dublin
and told each one in turn that I would hold him personally responsible for re-prisals in his particular police area. Splendidly have these gallant men—they are not all there now whom I addressed in this matter, because some of them have been murdered—gallantly have they held their men in check, in spite of murders so awful that no one in this House, to my mind, would face them with the same self-control and discipline, or, rather, I should say with greater self-control and discipline. Martial law was imposed subsequent to this Order because the martial law area was considered, and rightly considered, the most disturbed and rebellious area in Ireland. As soon as you impose martial law you hand over to the Commander-in-Chief absolute control of everybody in that particular area. He and his commanders dislike any form of reprisal as much as the most severe critic of the Government dislikes it, but they have laid down certain rules, military grounds I call them, within which they believe that in certain specified cases and under certain circumstances—there are not many such cases—the destruction of property is justifiable. These are the grounds:
In every case where the official punishment is the destruction of a building, that building itself has been used in connection with rebel action, for instance, as the basis from which an ambush was prepared, or the owners have aided and abetted rebels in their campaign of outrage and murder.
Those are the grounds drawn up by military men to be applied in these limited and clearly defined cases. It is true, and it must at times happen, that when the local military commander has the best reason for thinking that the occupants of any given house come within these rules, he may be mistaken. Innocent people may suffer and the houses of innocent people may be destroyed. I admit it at once. In a state of rebellion the greatest tragedy of all is that the innocent do suffer. I have told the House I shall try to meet these cases as far as I can. I will go further and say it is open to question whether reprisals generally in a martial law or other area are ever satisfactory in the long run. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had experience in South Africa, where that policy was tried. I have heard some people say it was successful and I have heard him say it was not. It is open to doubt, but as far as his Motion is con-
cerned, what I have read shows that when reprisals are taken they are taken on necessary and purely military grounds, so that anyone who supports the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will support the policy of the Commander-in-Chief in the martial-law area, who only agrees to reprisals on military grounds.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is that the explanation of the burning of Cork?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, it is not the explanation.

Mr. MOSLEY: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to proceed with his speech.

Mr. MOSLEY: I want to challenge him on this point—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has spoken already.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, the hon Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has made a speech. He wished to commit a reprisal on me of the most violent kind by handing me down as standing at the bar of history. But I am now at the bar of the House of Commons, and that is sufficient for the day. I say it is open to question whether reprisals under the strictly limited rule laid down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion are successful or not. On that point let me say this: I am prepared to discuss the question with the Commander-in-Chief and to bring before him what has been said on the subject by undoubted supporters of the Government and of the soldiers and police in their endeavour to put down crime in Ireland, and to go into conference with him on this question. That being so, I am going further than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope he accepts that on the general principle of reprisals. Let me give the House an idea of what causes these reprisals. They are not done in an indiscriminate and promiscuous way. British generals, colonels, majors, and soldiers do not wander about Ireland like bandits let loose. They are under the strictest discipline. They suffer untold agonies owing to provocative and brutal murders, and a reprisal is only taken in the martial-law area, when no
other remedy seems possible and when the commander of the area thinks it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why not try Liberal principles for a change? [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you know about them? "]

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is a most serious matter, and I wish the House to realise what leads up to the few reprisals, under carefully defined military conditions, in the martial-law area. I am going to read one letter, and one letter only, from a very gallant officer, murdered under the most distressing circumstances, and if this document does not touch the heart of everyone here, I am surprised. It is a letter that speaks for itself. It is, from a D.S.O. of the British Army, a man mentioned six times in despatches, murdered at the age of 52, leaving a wife and a little girl, aged three. It is from near Limerick, where he was in the custody of Sinn Feiners who kidnapped him:
My own darling little wife,—I am to be shot in an hour's time. Dearest, your hubby will die with your name on his lips, your face before his eyes, and he will die like an Englishman and a soldier. I cannot tell you, sweetheart, how much it is to me to leave you alone, nor how little to me personally to die. I have no fear, only the utmost, greatest, and tenderest love to you, and my sweet little Anne. I leave my cigarette case to the Regiment, my miniature medals to my father, whom I have implored to befriend you in everything, and my watch to the officer who is executing me, because I believe him to be a gentleman, to mark the fact that I bear him no malice for carrying out what he sincerely believes to be his duty. Good-bye, my darling, my own. Choose from among my things some object which you would particularly keep in memory of me. I believe that my spirit will be in it to love and comfort you. Tender, tender farewells and kisses.—Your own, Geof.
That was Major Compton Smith, D.S.O., of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, of Limerick. He is dead, done to death by Sinn Fein murderers. What would we do if we were in his regiment? This is the kind of case that leads to an official reprisal. I want to bring home to the House the difficulties that have to be faced. Here is a regiment on edge; it has seen his letter in the Press or it the regimental headquarters. The brigade commander must say to himself: "How can I show these men that we are trying to track down the assassins of their gallant commander?" In a case of this kind he takes certain houses which come
within the category of reprisals that the Commander-in-Chief has laid down, namely, that they were used as a basis for which an ambush had been prepared or the owners of which had aided and abetted the rebels in their campaign of outrage and murder. In such a case, certain houses are taken. I want the House to understand that that is the kind of case that leads to a reprisal. Whether they are right or not is open to question. The point to remember is, do not judge the conduct of these soldiers in the martial law area from the cool, un-impassioned atmosphere of this House, but judge it by the conflict, the murder, and the mutilations that go on in certain parts of the martial law area. I come to the particular case raised by the right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate, namely, that of Tincurry House, in Tipperary. He said himself that he supported a reprisal if there were reasonable grounds for thinking the occupants were consorting with the rebels.

Major-General SEELY: The words I used were, that the residents were participating in outrages and murder.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman said. He read a letter from Dr. Tobin about the burning of the house. It of course made a great impression upon anyone, but you cannot deal with a case of burning, or any other action of that kind in Ireland as an isolated instance in a law-abiding community. Tipperary, where this burning took place, is one of the most disturbed areas in Ireland, and always has been. It is a common Irish saying that the Tipperary people are descended from Cromwell's Ironsides, who were disbanded, and married Irish girls, and the descendants are the wild men.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: They were peaceable enough before you came.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord has had a full opportunity.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The right hon. Gentleman has no right — [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the Noble Lord listens as well as speaks he ought not to sit in this House.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not saying anything to cause an interruption.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The usual tactless speech.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sorry I have not the tact of the hon. and gallant Member. However, in Tipperary there have been 40 police and soldiers murdered in the last two years, and some six law-abiding citizens have been assassinated. It is a very mountainous part, and it lends itself, therefore, to the peculiar kind of guerilla warfare followed by the Irish Republican Army. That is Tipperary generally. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Tincurry House, I am bound to say he made, as he always does, a great impression upon me, and I dealt with it at once, through the Commander-in-Chief, who sent a special messenger to Tipperary from Dublin to inquire into the facts. The first letter was so remarkable that I asked for further facts, and I am compelled now to read the official reply I have received from the Commander-in-Chief in reference to Tincurry:
I have discovered already that the house is marked 'Divisional Headquarters, I.R.A.,' on one of their own maps, and that they have an eye on the butts of the rifle ranges nearby. Tincurry House was destroyed on 14th May, together with several others as punishment for the murder of District Inspector Potter.
It was very similar to that of Major Compton-Smith.

Sir T. POLSON: May I say that officer was my first cousin?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The letter goes on to say that they had a strong suspicion that Mrs. Tobin, who had strong Republican sympathies, was suspected of having harboured rebels. That is the official reply of the Commander-in-Chief. His opinion may be wrong. I do not think it is, but it may be. It only shows that in dealing with these Irish questions and disturbed areas like Tipperary, or any military-law area, it is extremely difficult to take the first statement of facts as absolutely correct. It may be that a great blunder has occurred here. It may be, and I promise the right hon. Gentleman that if there has been I will do my best to take into my most sympathetic consideration the question of compensating any innocent sufferer. I cannot do more. I will, however, put it to the House that there was a justifiable suspicion, from what I have read, on which the brigade commander—presum-
ing the official reprisals were right—could fairly act. That is the view of the Commander-in-Chief. It was carried out. The destruction was regrettable, distressing, deplorable, I agree. But it was carried out under discipline. No one was insulted. I am bound to say that the scene described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the hostess entertaining on the lawn the destroyers of her household was a thing that could only happen in Ireland.

Major-General SEELY: The destruction of the house where two lads laid down their lives for us during the War!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That adds to the tragedy of it. But had the destruction anything to do with the sacrifice of gallant officers! I am giving the House the exact facts as they came to me. I think I have dealt with the various questions that have been raised in the Debate. My submission is that I can accept in substance the Resolution of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, namely, that reprisals should not be carried out except on purely military grounds. I go further, and say that they are not carried out in any form except in the martial-law area, and in that area never carried out except on military grounds. I think I have shown that orders have been issued in reference to reprisals, and have been successful. Let us face realities. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have criticised me very severely, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. One must do the best one can having regard to the political remedy of this House which is applied to Ireland in the face of rebellion in a considerable part of the country. We are faced with that re-bellion. The military have been criticised—I think very unfairly. The police of the Auxiliary Division come in very often for a very great deal of criticism—again, I think, unfairly. What are the facts? Within a few miles of this House there is a sinister and highly-paid rebellion going on, carried on with the object of separating for ever Ireland from the United Kingdom. That object is being carried out by the Irish Republican Army, as it is called. It consists of men who wear no uniform and no distinctive mark; they generally carry concealed weapons as civilians one minute, and they are murderers the next,
contrary to all the laws of civilised warfare. The object of this Irish Republican Army—which is a negligible minority of the Irish people, who would be grateful to the Government if they could rid the country of this terror—is to intimidate this House and the British people into a surrender to Irish independence. I shall never consent to that. The Government will never consent to even argue it. The hope of Ireland, to my mind, is first of all to defeat this Irish Republican Army, and then encourage the coming together of the North and South, which has happily commenced, and leave Ireland to the Irish leaders themselves to settle within the limits defined by the Government. In that way only will you, bring peace to that distracted country and enable the vast majority of the people there to become happy and contented partners with us in the United Kingdom.

Captain W. BENN: I propose to confine myself quite narrowly to the terms of the Adjournment Motion without dealing with the wider issues which the Chief Secretary has opened. I should like to respond to the appeal made by earlier speakers to confine this Debate to a discussion of the policy of burning and reprisals and leave alone the wider issues, upon which I should only excite controversy in the minds of hon. Members. The question is, first, Is the burning of houses a policy which should be pursued by the Government, and is it likely to be successful? The Chief Secretary has told us that he accepts the sub-stance of the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely). It lays down, that reprisals can only be justified on the ground of military necessity.
The Chief Secretary says that is, in effect, the policy which the Government are adopting in Ireland. That is the impression which he is giving us here in the House of Commons, but it is a totally different policy from the one he is pursuing in Ireland and it does not correspond in the least with the policy being carried out in Ireland under his administration. Take quite a recent case a few days ago. There was a Proclamation issued officially by the military in Cork. The Chief Secretary says that the policy of reprisals
is merely the burning of houses as a military operation. This is the Proclamation in Cork:
Owing to the burning of the houses of two loyalist farmers, three farm houses of active Sinn Feiners were burned as a military operation.
That is not a military operation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because these houses are not shown to be houses in which military offences were committed. They were not centres of attack. It is simply vengeance. Then the Proclamation goes on:
It is intended to carry out further reprisals in that proportion, or if that proportion does not have the desired effect in a greater proportion.
Hon. Gentleman cheer that. Exactly. It is to say that if they continue to burn two houses we will burn three, and if that does not stop them we will probably burn six. That is the Proclamation of the military in Cork. The Chief Secretary tells us that the burning of houses is merely to be carried on as a military operation in cases of military necessity. The two statements are in flat contradiction. The Chief Secretary says the reprisals are only carried out as a military necessity. What does he think of this Tralee Proclamation, which states that as a result of the murder of a sergeant certain houses, of which a list is given, were destroyed, and nine houses were bombed. Does this Proclamation square with what the Chief Secretary has told us to-night? The document gives a long list of houses and stores damaged, and it tells further how a woman and her child had a marvellous escape from a bomb which destroyed the piano and ceiling in a room in which they were. I do not desire to read touching instances. Heaven knows there are such instances on both sides. The Chief Secretary has read one of the most touching documents I ever heard in my life. That is the tragedy of it. The policy of the Chief Secretary produces heroes on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman is exciting feeling in this country by reading that letter, but other people in Ireland are exciting feelings of the people there and we are getting no nearer a solution of the problem. [An HON. MEMBER: "They should stop the murders!"] The right hon. Gentleman says that reprisals can only be justified by success. But
he does not pretend that his policy is a success: he has just told us he is unable to carry it out with success because he has not troops enough to do it. The Chief Secretary has led the House to believe that a policy is being carried out in Ireland which, in fact, is not being carried out, and therefore I shall vote for my right hon. Friend's motion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the burning of the house and grocer's shop of Mr. Honan, the Chairman of the Ennis Urban Council, as to which we have his own admission. It has been impossible [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member's habit of interruption makes it difficult for him to obtain a hearing. Might I appeal to hon. Members to allow him to deliver his speech. Perhaps that will teach him to extend the same forbearance to other hon. Members.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I make no complaint, Sir. I am much obliged for your protection. This man Honan had been in hospital for three weeks—that is the right hon. Gentleman's own admission. He was a widower, with six children, the eldest of whom was his daughter, aged 13. This man's shop was blown to atoms as a reprisal by the military authorities, for an ambush and for the very dastardly assassination, which I condemn as heartily as the right hon. Gentleman or any of his supporters, of Sergeant Rew, of the Royal Scots Regiment. I deplore these murders; they make our task increasingly difficult. This man Honan had been in hospital for three weeks before that time, and was in hospital in bed at the time of the blowing up of his shop. His motherless children were in the house. They were bundled out, and the right hon. Gentleman gives, as an excuse, that Mr. Honan was one of the people known as the chief organisers of rebel activities. Yet he was in hospital for three weeks before the ambush. Is there any hon. Gentleman who can justify that? Can the right hon. Gentleman himself justify it? That is my first question.
My second question is in regard to the burnings of the farmhouse of Miss Fitzgerald. Her son served right through the
War. It is in a lonely mountainous district. She protested to the Military Governor that she had no means of preventing an ambush some miles from her farmhouse, but the house of this lonely woman was burned down in revenge for the ambush. The third question is: what justification was there for the destruction of the house belonging to Madge O'Daly? She had gone to Dublin—that is admitted by the military authorities—to visit her doctor, and was far away from the premises when the ambush occurred. In spite of protests, her house was destroyed for military necessities. If that is the policy that the Government have adopted in Ireland, I consider they are damned before the civilised world. We have heard nothing worse than this in the trials of the German War criminals at Leipzig. If hon. Members are prepared to justify war on women and children and widows—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—and the destruction of their houses, if they are prepared to encourage the Government then let them vote for the Government. I only hope, however, that Members who were loud in condemning very similar occurrences in Belgium, committed by our enemies during the War, will attempt to make one protest to-night, when the opportunity occurs, against this inhuman and uncivilised action.

Major-General SEELY: I am placed in some difficulty in regard to one thing that has happened during this Debate. My right hon. Friend has said that he accepts the substance of my Motion, which has been almost unanimously supported in this House in the form in which I moved it. Then there is a point with which I was fully conversant before. The right hon. Gentleman's Order has been quoted in an exactly contrary sense, namely, where two houses will not do, burn four, and where four will not do, burn six. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he disavows what has been done. No man in his position could do that. But I want to know whether what he has said amounts to a direct condemnation of an Order of that kind, which means indiscriminate reprisal in order to try to stop murder by burning houses. That is a perfectly clear question, and one to which we are entitled to an answer in order to guide us as to how we should vote.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I should be only too glad to guide my right hon. Friend as to how he should vote. Of course, I condemn indiscriminate burning. I do not believe that it brings to an end this campaign of assassination against the forces of the Crown and law-abiding citizens. I cannot deal across the Table with any particular case that has been raised in Debate, because I shall have to communicate with the military authorities on the spot to get their point of view. My right hon. Friend himself is an ex-Cabinet Minister, and knows that one can only speak with the knowledge supplied by those responsible for carrying out the orders of the Government. But I condemn, and have at this Box again and again condemned, any form of indiscriminate reprisal against houses or any other form of reprisal. The Motion states that reprisals in Ireland should be carried out only in the martial law area under an officer of not lower rank than a brigade commander, on military grounds, and within a certain limited period. That is why I said that I accepted the substance of that part of the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

Major-General SEELY: Could the right hon. Gentleman cancel any Order which appears to conflict with what he has said to-night?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Of course I could.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Did not the Chief Secretary declare that he was ready to accept the Motion? Why therefore does he now demand a Division?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is not a Division.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.